MJ’s Bed – By Invitation Only

There’s an interesting myth flowing through the Michael Jackson fan community about Jackson’s infamous habit of sharing his bed with children.

Likely knowing how bad this behavior looks to people who don’t “know” Michael like they do, fans insist several things about that touchy subject: Jackson always slept on the floor when children shared his bedroom; he never invited children into his bed; and that he welcomed both boys and girls into his bed, equally, as part of an open door policy.

I’m going to prove that all these assertions are false, and do not fit the evidence.

First, let’s address the claim Jackson only ever slept on the floor when he shared a bedroom with children. Fans have taken one sentence from one interview that Jackson did — relating to one incident where Jackson said he slept on the floor — and turned that into a blanket statement for all of his sleepovers.

This excerpt is from the 2003 documentary Living With Michael Jackson, where Jackson defends the practice of having young children in his bedroom:

Bashir: “When you are talking about children we met Gavin – and it was a great privilege to meet Gavin because he’s had a lot of suffering in his life – when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?”

Jackson: “Yes.”

Bashir: “Can you understand why people would worry about that?”

Jackson: “Because they are ignorant.”

Recall that in 1993 Jackson had been accused of molestation, and from an early stage had defended his sleepovers with children. Jackson’s lawyer at the time, Bert Fields reflected Jackson’s view when questioned by a reporter. “He really lives the life of a 12-year-old,” Fields said. “One of the things he has done – the things I did when I was 11 or 12, probably all of us did – was to have sleepovers.”

However, most 11 and 12-year-olds aren’t accused of molestation by their friends, and Jackson had suffered criticism from that time about the appropriateness of a man in his late thirties sharing his bed with children, typically boys in a particular age range. People were naturally going to question his behavior, then and now, knowing there is something amiss about a man preferring to sleep with children over adults.

We also need to remember that at the time of the Bashir interview many things about Jackson’s relationships with boys were unknown — his collection of child erotica and pornography, the amount of his settlement with the Chandlers (as well as the terms of that settlement), the incredible number of nights he spent on one-on-one sleepovers with boys (as well as the extraordinary lengths he went to in order to make them happen), and his second settlement to another boy who accused him of molestation.

At that point in time, before the raid which revealed the adult accoutrements were found in his bedroom (the straight and gay porn, the child erotica, the gay primer manual, the pills and the booze), before the salacious revelations in court, and before the full extent of his deception was known, Jackson could pretend Neverland was a suitable place for children and that the sleepovers were a result of his “lost childhood”.

Bashir: “But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?”

Jackson: “That’s a beautiful thing.”

Bashir: “That’s not a worrying thing?”

Jackson: “Why should that be worrying, what’s the criminal…who’s Jack the Ripper in the room? There’s some guy trying to heal a healing child … I’m in a sleeping bag on the floor.
“I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag.”

Jackson says a middle-aged man sharing a bedroom with an unrelated child is a beautiful thing. He does qualify his statement by implying he isn’t Jack the Ripper, to make it appear he can be trusted. Jack the Ripper was a 19th Century serial murderer — it’s no surprise that Jackson used him as an example to give a powerful contrast to make himself look like a safe alternative. It’s a clever psychological device, and I get the feeling Jackson had used the example before with parents*.

The following exchange directly contradicts the fan narrative that Jackson never slept in bed with children — and in Jackson’s own words.

Bashir: “Did you ever sleep in the bed with them (the Arvizo brothers)?”

Jackson: “No. But I have slept in a bed with many children.
“I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little: Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there…we all would just jam in the bed, you know.
“We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had the footage. I have all that footage.”

In interviews during the Chandler scandal of 1993, Jackson friends Wade Robson and Brett Barnes, who were both eleven at the time, revealed that they had also slept in the same bed (on different occasions) with Jackson.

Wade Robson & Brett Barnes videos at bottom of this page

Jackson tries to tell that because he shared his bed with Mac, Keiran, and their sisters, and he has “footage,” this makes his habit of sleeping with children all above board. His statement is a sleight of hand. Jackson rarely shared his bed with more than one child, and on this occasion it’s not even clear that the Culkin sisters were in the bed: note that when Jackson says “in there,” he points back behind Bashir’s shoulder, an indication the girls may have actually slept apart from the males. The footage Jackson refers to had been taken the next day, so it has nothing to do with what occurred in the bedroom the night before.

Jackson’s statement also creates a puzzle. If he said that he slept “with Mac on one side and Keiran on the other,” that means he had ample room in his bed for several people. Conversely, his reason he gave for sleeping on the floor while the Arvizos were in his room was “I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag.”

It’s unlikely Jackson slept on the floor when the Arvizo boys were in his bed for reasons of space, so why does he imply that? If he were to reveal the real reason — that he realizes sharing a bed with children is largely taboo in society’s eyes and leaves his actions open to possible lawsuits — it would invalidate his feigned unawareness of why he should have ceased not only continuing the practice but also defending it after the 1993 allegations.

Bashir is still incredulous that Jackson finds an adult male sharing his bed with unrelated children is acceptable.

Bashir: “But is that right Michael?”

Jackson: “It’s very right. It’s very loving, that’s what the world needs now, more love more heart.”

Bashir: “The world needs a man who’s 44 who’s sleeping in a bed with children?”

Jackson: “No, you’re making it – no, no you’re making it all wrong …”

Bashir: “Well, tell me, help me …”

Jackson: “Because what’s wrong with sharing a love? You don’t sleep with your kids? Or some other kid who needs love who didn’t have a good childhood?”

For Jackson, sharing your love to a “kid who needs love who didn’t have a good childhood” involves sharing a bed, rather than giving them a stable life, better opportunities and lots of healthy affection.

Bashir: “No, no I don’t. I would never dream …”

Jackson: “That’s because you’ve never been where I’ve been mentally …”

Bashir: “What do you think people would say if I said well – ‘I’ve invited some of my daughter’s friends round or my son’s friends round and they are going to sleep in a bed with me tonight’?

Jackson: “That’s fine!”

Bashir: “What do you think their parents would say?”

Jackson: “If they’re wacky they would say ‘You can’t’, but if you’re close family, like your family, and you know them well and …”

Bashir: “But Michael, I wouldn’t like my children to sleep in anybody else’s bed.”

Jackson: “Well, I wouldn’t mind if I knew the person well. I am very close to Barry Gibb – Paris and Prince can stay with him anytime; my children sleep with other people all the time.

(Note: It’s interesting that Jackson doesn’t conclusively say that his children slept with Barry Gibb, nor does he name these mysterious “other people.” His choice of words indicate he is lying)

Bashir: “And you’re happy with that?”

Jackson: “Fine with it. They’re honest, they are sweet people. They are not Jack the Ripper.”

Jackson plays the naïf, seemingly unaware of societal mores which govern sleepovers with unrelated children. However he reveals, subtly, that one needs to have a particular set of views before partaking of the custom by replying to Bashir when he says he wouldn’t ever take unrelated children to bed, “you’ve never been where I’ve been mentally.

Jackson reiterated his defense during his 2003 appearance on 60 Minutes with Ed Bradley.

Ed Bradley: That British documentary last February — which you didn’t like —

Michael Jackson: Yeah, I didn’t like it.

Ed Bradley: You — you said in that documentary that— that many children have slept in your bedroom.

Michael Jackson: Yeah.

Ed Bradley: You said, and — and I’m gonna quote here, “Why can’t you share your bed? A most loving thing to do is to share your bed with— with someone.”

Michael Jackson: Yes.

Ed Bradley: As — as we sit here today, do you still think that it’s acceptable to share your bed with children?

Michael Jackson: Of course. Of course. Why not? If you’re gonna be a pedophile, if you’re gonna be Jack the Ripper, if you’re gonna be a murderer, it’s not a good idea. That I’m not. That’s how we were raised. And I met — I didn’t sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it’s okay. I slept on the floor. I give the bed to the child.

Ed Bradley: But given all that you’ve been through —

Michael Jackson: Yeah?

Ed Bradley: Given the allegations, given the innuendo — why would you put yourself in a position where something like this could happen again?

Michael Jackson: Well, I’m always more cautious. But I will never stop helping and loving people the way Jesus said to. He said, “Continue to love. Always love. Remember children. Imitate the children.” Not childish, but childlike.

Bed sharing has little to do with “love”, especially in the case of preteen boys. One would need to assume that they like to sleep together in the same bed either with boys of the same age or adult men to agree with Jackson’s statements, and there is no evidence that boys approaching puberty enjoy bed sharing.

Note also that Jackson cynically conflates religion, love, and sleepovers so as to make it appear that the answer to the question — “Why would you put yourself in a position where something like this could happen again?” — is that he is performing some kind of public service, graciously allowing poor and marginalized children in his bed (in spite of the reality, a mix of middle class and rich boys).

Soundover: That may sound naïve, but Jackson attorney Mark Geragos says they did take precautions.

MARK GERAGOS: They were, at all times during that February 7 to March 10 period of time, whenever Michael was there, there was always a third party around. Always.

Ed Bradley: You’re a parent. You’ve got three children.

Michael Jackson: Yes.

Ed Bradley: Would you allow your children to sleep in the bed with a grown man, who was not a relative, or to sleep in the bedroom?

Michael Jackson: Sure, if I know that person, trust them, and love them. That’s happened many times with me when I was little.

Ed Bradley: Would you, as a parent, allow your children to sleep in the same bedroom with someone, who has the suspicions and allegations that have been made against you, and about you today? Would you allow that?

Michael Jackson: Someone —

Ed Bradley: If you knew someone, who had the same —

Michael Jackson: I’m not —

Ed Bradley: —kind of allegations —

Michael Jackson: Ed, I — I know exactly what you’re saying.

ED BRADLEY: — that were made against you — would you let your children —

Michael Jackson: My children?

ED BRADLEY: — sleep in that man’s bedroom?

Michael Jackson: Mmm, if I — if I knew the person personally. Cause I know how the press is, and how people can twist the truth, if I knew the person personally, absolutely yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Jackson, rather than speaking of other people, is talking about himself here.

ED BRADLEY: Do you know how this looks to a lot of people? I mean, do you understand that?

Michael Jackson: How does what look?

ED BRADLEY: How the fact that you —

Michael Jackson: Know why? People think sex. They’re thinking sex. My mind doesn’t run that way. When I see children, I see the face of God. That’s why I love them so much. That’s what I see.

ED BRADLEY: Do you know any other man your age, a 45-year-old man, who shares his bedroom with children?

Michael Jackson: Of course. Not for sex. No. That’s wrong.

ED BRADLEY: Well, let me — let me say, from my perspective, my experience, I don’t know any 45-year-old men, who are not relatives of the children, who share their bedroom with other children.

Michael Jackson: Well, what’s wrong with sharing your bed? I didn’t say I slept in the bed. Even if I did sleep in the bed, it’s okay. I am not going to do anything sexual to a child. It’s not where my heart is. I would never do anything like that. That’s not Michael Jackson. I’m sorry. That’s someone else.

Let’s look closely at this back and forth. Jackson fails to give one reason why he should be sharing his bed with children. He could have used his “lost childhood” as an excuse, or his isolation (as he had in the past) yet didn’t. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Rather than attempting to cement some reasons as to why he should be excused from traditional social mores and saying this is a practice which could only be enjoyed by those who somehow missed out when they were younger, or under special circumstances, as he insinuated to Martin Bashir — “..you’ve never been where I’ve been mentally” —  Jackson says there is nothing wrong with anyone sharing their bed. He ignores that fact that at the very least, when it involves unrelated children, it would be viewed as suspicious and at worst it can be dangerous for both the child and the adult.

Check out  Redemption by Geraldine Hughes

We have plenty of disclaimers which point at trust issues – Jackson emphasizes family, people you can trust, it’s loving, it’s not for sex. He also studiously sidesteps an important question — he couldn’t give a single example of another 45-year-old man who slept with unrelated children. This is understandable, they aren’t that common and the examples that are out there aren’t very convincing. Here was Jackson’s opportunity to highlight his uniqueness (an argument which his defenders rely on heavily) yet he failed to take it.  He also couldn’t name any man he would allow his own children to share a bed with.

Michael Jackson Statement Analysis

Now to the claim that Jackson had an open door policy.

While stories abound of young visitors to Neverland, both boys and girls, pestering their parents to sleep with Jackson after a full day’s bonding, and Jackson’s seemingly disinterested reply to parents after inquiring looks, of  “Well, if it’s OK with you,”** there was a rather more rigorous set of rules to subsequent sleepovers.

Diane: …What is a thirty-six year old man doing, sleeping, with a twelve year old boy? Or a series of them?

Michael: Right. Okay, when you say “boys”, it’s not just boys and I’ve never invited just “boys” to come in my room. C’mon that’s just ridiculous. And that’s a ridiculous question. But since people want to hear it, you know, the answer…I’ll be happy to answer it. I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But…anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.

(Diane Sawyer Interview)

That Jackson allowed “anybody” to come into his bed just isn’t true.

Firstly, girls were dissuaded from sharing Jackson’s bed. Sister after sister has related that they only spent a night or two or three in Jackson’s bed before bowing out and choosing to sleep elsewhere. While it would appear that this could have been a result of mere discouragement from MJ — a consequence of Jackson and his young male friends not wanting girls around while they enjoy boyish pursuits – a revealing letter from the anguished sister of the Cascios shows that at times MJ specifically excluded girls.

In the letter Marie Nicole says in part:

Dom, Angel, Frank were all your babies and since I am a girl I can’t be.

They get whatever they want whenever they want I can’t. Golf carts, quads, they all got to sleep with you and I never did. Face it I know I am not liked by you all. (Applehead club)


Another instance of “girls not permitted” was when Amy Agajanian was visiting the ranch in 2005, ready to testify as a character witness at his trial. This is the story she told:

Her older brothers were allowed to sleep over at the house, but even though she was MJ’s closest pal and spent far more time with him than the boys, she was relegated to a guesthouse with her mother. She was pissed! Michael explained to her it wasn’t proper for little girls to be in his house overnight unchaperoned.

The Jackson fan who spoke to Amy interpreted this as Jackson being chivalrous, however this snippet far better indicates that MJ’s supposed open door policy, where kids just slept in his room as a natural progression of playing together and that MJ didn’t care which kids, boys or girls, stayed, was a fallacy.

While researching this story we failed to find information on any girl who had spent more than a few nights in Jackson’s bed, in stark contrast to the wealth of evidence of the hundreds of nights each of his young male friends had spent there.

Under cross-examination by Ron Zonen, Wade Robson struggled when asked to testify about girls he had seen spend the night in Jackson’s bedroom:

Ron Zonen: Were there ever any girls, other than your sister, at age seven, who actually spent the night in Mr. Jackson’s room with you during the years that you knew him and spent the night in his room?

Wade Robson: Yes.

Ron Zonen: Who?

Wade Robson: There was Brandy Jackson.

Ron Zonen: I’m sorry?

Wade Robson: Brandy Jackson, who is Michael’s niece.

Ron Zonen: And she spent the night on how many occasions with you?

Wade Robson: Only one that I can remember.

Ron Zonen: One night?

Wade Robson: Yeah.

Ron Zonen: All right. So we’re talking about a period of about five years; is that right?

Wade Robson: Yeah.

Ron Zonen: In the five years, you can remember Brandy. Who else do you recall?

Wade Robson: As far as females?

Ron Zonen: Yes.

Wade Robson: My sister. Brandy. That’s all I remember.

Jackson’s house manager, Jesus Salas, also testified about a distinct lack of girls (and women) in Jackson’s bedroom.

Gordon Auchincloss: [speaking of children who slept in Jackson’s bedroom] Do you know if these children, whether or not — did you notice the age of these children?

Jesus Salas: They were around 10, 11. Around that age.

Gordon Auchincloss: Did you notice what gender they were?

Jesus Salas: No, I don’t.

Gordon Auchincloss: Did you notice whether they were boys or girls?

Jesus Salas: Well, yes, they were mostly boys.

Gordon Auchincloss: Did you ever see anyone else sleep in Mr. Jackson’s room other than these children?

Jesus Salas: Pretty much it was just the boys. That’s about it.

Further evidence that Michael Jackson would pick and choose his bed mates was provided by Joy Robson at the 2005 trial. She related an incident in 1993 when she and her son Wade were at the ranch at the same time as June and Jordan Chandler. Joy stated in her testimony that at one point during that visit, Jackson had chosen Jordan to stay in his Neverland bedroom, which left Wade excluded. Wade was disappointed that he had been banished to the guest cottage rather than being able to spend the night with Jackson. Jackson had specifically invited Jordan to his bedroom, leaving Wade feeling rejected.

Curiously, in spite of his rejection and disappointment at the time, Wade denied knowing Jordan slept alone with Jackson when he testified at the 2005 trial.

Ron Zonen: Did you know about other children that he had slept with?

Wade Robson: No.

Ron Zonen: Never?

Wade Robson: No.

Ron Zonen: Did you know that he was sleeping with Brett Barnes?

Wade Robson: No.

Ron Zonen: Did you know that he was sleeping with Macaulay Culkin?

Wade Robson: No.

Ron Zonen: Did you know that he was sleeping with Jordie Chandler?

Wade Robson: No.

If Wade was truly unaware of the other boys who shared Jackson’s bed, it shows deceit on the part of Jackson where he wanted to hide his activities and prevent knowledge of them being shared among his friends. On the other hand, if Wade had knowledge of Jackson’s special friends sharing his bed then he would be lying. Both are possible, although based on Jordan’s interview with Dr Richard Gardner where it became apparent that Jackson would play boys off against each other, it’s more likely that Wade knew about the other boys and was lying in an effort to protect Jackson’s image as the previous (disallowed) question by Zonen was “You knew that there were a succession of ten-year-old boys that he slept with, didn’t you?”

All of the above is evidence from Jackson fan approved sources, so for them to continue the myth that Jackson “never invited children into his bed” would involve total ignorance of the facts.

Check out  How Innocent Was Michael Jackson Really?

For additional evidence, we have James Safechuck’s complaint in his case against the Estate. Towards the end of the document, James iterates what was, for Jackson, a drawing to a close of their intimate friendship. To prepare for his separation from James, Jackson had by then befriended ten-year-old Brett Barnes and begun spending more time with him. On one occasion when Jackson, James, and Brett were together Jackson once again picked and chose who would be in his bed that night:

On one of the weekends that Plaintiff spent with Brett and DECEDENT at The Hideout, Plaintiff began to feel as though he “was on the outs” with DECEDENT. The DECEDENT had spent the night in his bedroom with Brett, instead of with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff spent the night on the couch. Plaintiff experienced feelings of jealously as a result of being replaced by Brett.

That Jackson selectively invited particular children (invariably boys) into his bed and excluded other children from it strongly suggests an ulterior motive to his behavior. That he lied about it, “Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But…anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.”, is a sign that he wanted to cover up the fact that he was highly selective about who could share his bed on a regular basis. He even played favorites with his regular bed mates. He engendered jealousy, anger, and rivalry in children with his unwritten rules over who was and who wasn’t allowed into his bed.

* Upon careful reading, everything that Jackson says about his sleepovers appears to be patter, a set of phrases he has built up over the years to convince parents to allow him access to private time with their children and to deflect suspicion from the public when asked about it. back to story

** That scenario is the one fans prefer, and it was true in some cases. But Jackson also went to great lengths to manipulate boys into his bed. June Chandler testified at his 2005 molestation trial about their trip to Las Vegas:

Tom Sneddon: How did you get to Las Vegas?

June Chandler: By jet, private jet.

Tom Sneddon: And who was with you on the jet?

June Chandler: My son Jordan, Lily, myself and Michael.

Tom Sneddon: And when you got to Las Vegas, where did you stay, what hotel?

June Chandler: The Mirage Hotel.

Tom Sneddon: And when you got to The Mirage Hotel, do you remember what time of day or night it was?

June Chandler: No.

Tom Sneddon: Do you remember how long you stayed in Las Vegas on this occasion?

June Chandler: Two or three nights.

Tom Sneddon: Now, when you got to Las Vegas, did you have — obviously you had a room —

June Chandler: Correct.

Tom Sneddon: — in The Mirage. And who was in your room when you first got there? Who was staying in your room?

June Chandler: Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.

Tom Sneddon: All in the same room?

June Chandler: Correct.

Tom Sneddon: Now, did those arrangements change at any point in time?

June Chandler: Yes.

Tom Sneddon: And when did they change?

June Chandler: The second night things changed.

Tom Sneddon: With regard to “things changed,” could you tell me what changed first?

June Chandler: Well, there were approximately three bedrooms in that suite at the Mirage Hotel. Lily and I were staying in one bedroom, Jordie had another bedroom, and Michael had another bedroom. The second night, they were going to see a performance, Cirque du Soleil performance.

Tom Sneddon: “They” meaning who?

June Chandler: Jordie and Michael —

Tom Sneddon: Okay.

June Chandler: — and Lily and I. It was around 11 p.m. at night, and I got a call from somebody at Cirque du Soleil saying, “Where is Michael?” And I said, “He should be there with my son.” They said, “He’s not here.” A little while later, another call, he still didn’t show up. They still did not show up. And I — there’s a knock on the door and it’s Michael and Jordan, and they came back into the suite. Michael —

Tom Sneddon: Now, let me stop you right there, okay?

June Chandler: Yes.

Tom Sneddon: About what time is it when your son Jordan and the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, showed up?

June Chandler: Well, I think the performance started at 11:00, and I would say Jordan and Michael showed up around 11:30.

Tom Sneddon: Now, could you describe for the jury Mr. Jackson’s demeanor at the time that they came back to the room?

June Chandler: He was sobbing. He was crying, shaking, trembling.

Tom Sneddon: Michael Jackson was?

June Chandler: He was.

Tom Sneddon: And what about your son’s demeanor?

June Chandler: He was quiet.

Tom Sneddon: Now, at that point in time, did Mr. Jackson tell you why he was upset or crying?

June Chandler: Yes.

Tom Sneddon: All right. Tell the jury what he said.

June Chandler: He said, “You don’t trust me? We’re a family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is with you.” He said, “But my bedroom. Why not in my bedroom? We fall asleep, the kids have fun. Boys” —

Tom Mesereau: Objection. Nonresponsive; narrative.

Judge: Narrative; sustained.

Tom Sneddon: All right. Tell us what – Mr. Jackson said that he wanted your son to sleep with him in his bed – what you said to Mr. Jackson.

June Chandler: What I said to Michael was, “This is not” — “This is not anything that I want. This is not right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants to sleep.”

Tom Sneddon: Is this you talking or Mr. Jackson speaking?

June Chandler: I was saying this. And Michael was trembling and saying, “We’re a family. Jordie is having fun. Why can’t he sleep in my bed? There’s nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on. Don’t you trust me?”

Tom Sneddon: All right. How long do you think this conversation lasted between you and Mr. Jackson over where Jordan was going to sleep that night?

June Chandler: I would say 20 to 30, 40 minutes.

Tom Sneddon: So it was a back-and-forth conversation; is that right?

June Chandler: Yes.

Tom Sneddon: Do you recall how many times during that conversation that Mr. Jackson emphasized the fact that you didn’t trust him?

June Chandler: I don’t recall how many times.

Tom Sneddon: Was it on more than one occasion?

June Chandler: Absolutely, yes.

Tom Sneddon: Was it on many occasions?

June Chandler: Quite a few.

Tom Sneddon: Do you remember how many times during the conversation that Mr. Jackson emphasized to you that you were family?

June Chandler: Many times.

Tom Sneddon: Did you at some point in time relent and allow your son to sleep with Michael Jackson in his bedroom?

June Chandler: Yes, I did.

Tom Sneddon: And was it after that discussion on that night?

June Chandler: Yes.

Tom Sneddon: Is that the first occasion?

June Chandler: Correct.

Some people may dismiss this story based on the fact that it was June Chandler speaking. However, look carefully at the words she says Jackson used. Trust. Family. Nothing is going on. Compare this with the conversations covered earlier in this piece. With Ed Bradley:

Ed Bradley: Would you allow your children to sleep in the bed with a grown man, who was not a relative, or to sleep in the bedroom?

MICHAEL JACKSON: Sure, if I know that person, trust them, and love them.


ED BRADLEY: Well, let me — let me say, from my perspective, my experience, I don’t know any 45-year-old men, who are not relatives of the children, who share their bedroom with other children.

MICHAEL JACKSON: Well, what’s wrong with sharing your bed? I didn’t say I slept in the bed. Even if I did sleep in the bed, it’s okay. I am not going to do anything sexual to a child. It’s not where my heart is. I would never do anything like that. That’s not Michael Jackson. I’m sorry. That’s someone else.

With Martin Bashir:

Bashir: “What do you think people would say if I said well – ‘I’ve invited some of my daughter’s friends round or my son’s friends round and they are going to sleep in a bed with me tonight’?

Jackson: “That’s fine!”

Bashir: “What do you think their parents would say?”

Jackson: “If they’re wacky they would say ‘You can’t’, but if you’re close family, like your family, and you know them well and …”

The words used by Jackson with June Chandler are consistent with his rhetoric about sharing a bed with children and contain his own talking points.

Chantal Robson repeated those words in her testimony:

Q. You would allow your own seven-year-old son to sleep with a 35-year-old man that he has just met?

A. If I trusted the man, yes.

Brett Barnes also supported June’s testimony about the things Jackson said:

Q. Did he ever tell you that you were like family to him?

A. All the time.

Q. All the time. Did he ever tell you that you should trust him?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did he ever tell you that he was like a father to you?

A. He may have, yes.

Q. Did he ever tell you that he considered you to be like a son to him?

A. Yes.

Those talking points become absurd when combined with his “sobbing, crying, shaking and trembling”, the amount of time he spent pleading with June to allow Jordan into his bed, and Jordan staying quiet in the background while this was going on. There is no begging for Jordan’s sister Lily to join them either; Jackson only wanted a boy in his bed.

Another example is James Safechuck. In his civil complaint, Safechuck alleges that Jackson first asked Mrs. Safechuck if the boy could sleep in his bedroom in February 1988 (at the Pepsi convention in Hawaii) but was denied. The next occasion was during the Bad rehearsals later in February, at which time James was allowed to stay in the same house as Jackson but not in his bedroom. Jackson tried again in March on a visit to New York for a performance of Phantom of the Opera but was again denied. Finally, in May of 1988 when James was accompanying Jackson on the Bad tour and was in Paris, did Mrs Safechuck permit James to share Jackson’s bed. Jackson spent three months trying to get James where he wanted him. back to story


  • allysofwaderobson

    What also needs to be pointed out is that Michael Jackson claimed to be an advocate for children. He started and was head of a foundation for children. He also according to Taj Jackson gave advice on sexual abuse in the family. So why would he want to tear down the safeguards that society has put in place to protect children. How is advocating for this type of behavior helping children in any way, especially when he knows that even “family” can molest their own. The answer is simple, he does understand all these things he just chooses to ignore them for his own personal agenda

    • To’Shari

      Also, the way he never invited the sisters back for sleepovers in his private room along with their brother’s. The girls will spend up to 3 nights total compared to several years with the boys, alone. The same guy who sees God thru children’s eyes but let the girls feel really uncomfortable to be with him in the same room (bedroom specifically). And Michael says how kids follow him, wanting be with him then why beg, pleaded, crying, trembling, spending up to an half hour to convince June, the mother, why Jordie can’t sleep with him and why Jordie stood silent not crying or pleading with his mom to let him sleep in Michael’s bed? Hmmm. The fans should really look at this carefully and stop been in denial, Michael lied and the sleepovers wasn’t like he tried to make it out be. If Michael said he just wanted only the boys to sleep over alone, no girls allowed, this would draw major suspicion toward Michael. For people not to question Michael too much, his pattern starts with having the kids (probably the parents as well) for a group sleepover to build trust until he narrows down to only having his one picked “special friend” to continue the one on one sleeping session.

    • The Queen Of Swords

      Another reason why I don’t buy that MJ even thought he gave an ounce of shit about ANY of the boys he either molested/raped or attempted to molest.
      If what Taj said was true and the note was from MJ he KNEW damn well what he did was wrong. If he was violently sexually/raped by Joe like Johnny Jackson/Katherine’s family/Gordon Keith/Conrad Murray said and/or “pimped out” to Businessmen like Jermaine Jackson/Katherine’s relatives/Gordon Keith said, then he MORE than knew it was wrong … and that he knew he was doing life-long emotional/psychological/sexual damage to those boys.

      More Proof Jackson being an intentionally-manipulative phoney:


      If my memory is correct Jackson’s whole image was fake: https://youtu.be/hyMKdS29Lbw

      If it wasn’t for Conrad’s audio of MJ’s final words I would even doubt he even thought he cared about children in general …

  • Pea

    Good post, MJFacts team. There’s nothing quite like hearing Jacko explain himself! Mac Culkin said he doesn’t speak well and I recall being told by a particularly crazed Jacko fan not to consider Jacko’s words on a subject (instead I was told to trust the fan analysis I had read, which attempted to clean up the “mess” of Jacko’s own statements); however, even though I know Jacko was likely somewhat illiterate, an alleged inability to properly express himself doesn’t cover words given in response to plain questions. It’s obvious Jacko slept in bed with kids because he wanted to, and that he wanted to and was accused of molestation in beds should allow one to question the reason why he was so resistant to giving them up.

    I just wanted to point out that the exchange between Ed Bradley and Jacko where Bradley asks Jacko if he’d let someone like himself share a bed with his kids was a great moment in Michael Jackson television. We don’t get the full effect by reading the transcripts of the interview, and even on T.V. it was subtle, but Jacko scratched his “nose” uncomfortably and went shifty-eyed at the thought of such a thing. He short-circuited! It indicated to me that (a) he knew the reality of what his “sleepovers” involved, and (b) if PP&B were in a bedroom alone with “someone like himself” he knows his kids would end up with claims as lurid as Wade Robson’s.

    As was mentioned in the post, when asked by both Bradley and Bashir whether PP&B sleep with anyone, it is very interesting — telling! — that Jacko could name not one person who did as he did with other people’s kids. Yes, he scapegoats Barry Gibb but it’s clear that no one was sharing a bed with his children. So if it were all fine, why deny PP&B the “benefit” of some adult “sharing a love” with them and making darned sure they had a “good childhood”?

    That, of course, leads to a very reasonable conclusion: “bed = sex” in Jacko’s mind. This would then tend to explain why he didn’t let his kids participate. (By the way, I read a while ago that Jacko was also strict about his kids going on the rides at Neverland and enjoying other amenities he usually spoiled unrelated boys with. That also could suggest that the rides/amenities had a seductive purpose.)

    So, if even Jacko thinks bed-sharing with a man like him is not acceptable for his own children, would fans, now after learning about Jacko’s proscriptions, still defend his sleepovers? They clearly weren’t kosher; even Jacko agreed.

    • ShawntayUStay

      I laughed out loud at your use of “nose” in quotes! His “face” and “lips” were also quite ridiculous, LOL. So funny… But you are right, that was really the most defining moment in the entire interview, what an excellent question by Ed Bradley (a real journalist); MJ’s reaction was subtle so it’s easily missed but it spoke volumes. You just got the feeling that MJ was stunned at the reality of what the question implied. Perhaps he, just for the briefest moment, MJ realized what he was actually doing at these sleepovers and couldn’t imagine his three “prized possessions” having that done to them by an adult. I always thought MJ separated his “special friends” from the idealized “innocent child” of his fantasies — the ones he wouldn’t dream of defiling — and maybe PP&B represented the latter. Alternatively, he could have thought no way would he let anyone “get” what was his. Either way, you saw, in his body language and broken sentence, MJ actually have to think about what he’d been doing to those boys, IMO.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Wow, this is a great post; I know I shouldn’t have but I was chuckling throughout at the absurdity of MJ’s explanations. I love hearing it from the horse’s mouth, such a shame MJ wasn’t interviewed more about this topic. But I will say, the part where he says “…Even if I did sleep in the bed, it’s okay. I am not going to do anything sexual to a child. It’s not where my heart is. I would never do anything like that. That’s not Michael Jackson. I’m sorry. That’s someone else.” , it made me so sad because it’s such a monumental lie. Like how could he even say that with a straight face? All of the money he spent to silence Jordie Chandler; owning those two pedo-created nude boy books; what he did to James and Wade…ugh, as a former fan, that quote really to got me, strangely enough! He’s such a liar! Why, Michael, why?! 🙁

    What also stuck me was the arrogance of insisting that he should continue — was there no one that was there to tell him “Mike, this isn’t right. You’re going to get yourself into trouble.” And if he had been innocent he would’ve heeded such sensible advice, but instead, he never stopped. One wonders why he had so closely linked bed-sharing with the idea of a “lost childhood” or as a way of showing a kid “love” and “affection”. Experts in statement analysis say that we all have an “internal dictionary” where words have a specific meaning to each person. Perhaps MJ’s idea of “love” and “affection” and “sharing a love” etc, meant sex? Did he really believe there was any nexus between the exhortation to be “Christ-like” and sleeping in bed with a young boy? Or maybe he just was cynically using those words and imagery as a smokescreen.

    It’s all so twisted if he really thought that way.

    • What also stuck me was the arrogance of insisting that he should continue — was there no one that was there to tell him “Mike, this isn’t right. You’re going to get yourself into trouble.”

      I’m sure there were people that told him that, and I’m equally sure they would have been given short shrift!

      People may accept MJ’s reasons for bed sharing if he only partook of “slumber parties” with many children present and MJ sleeping on the floor (the only scenario which many fans believe happened in regards to MJ’s sleepovers), I can’t see how they would explain explain the decades long one-on-one sleepovers with his special friends.

  • CandyC

    Interesting post, MJFacts. I think the fans should put his sleepovers and “special friends” into perspective like this: if an average guy down the street, with no fame and no wealth copied Michael’s behaviour people would immediately be suspicious and have most likely have the cops on him swiftly. If Michael was not famous there’s no way he would have gotten away with his behaviour.

    It’s incomprehensible how Michael acted the way he did and yet was completely “innocent”. I don’t like to pick on him but this is something I’ve always thought of. He’s a fascinating subject.

    How his behaviour and the history he’s had with his “special friends” along with the lack of young girls and also women in his life has been swept under the carpet and exempted is beyond belief. But I guess you get that benefit being with his fame. :-/

    • I think the fans should put his sleepovers and “special friends” into perspective like this: if an average guy down the street, with no fame and no lavish wealth copied Michael’s behaviour people would immediately be suspicious and most likely have the cops on him swiftly. If Michael was not famous there’s no way he would have gotten away with his behaviour.

      If only it were that simple Candy! I’ve put that to fans before while debating with them, their retort is that “you can’t compare MJ to anyone else. He was the most famous person in the world. He was unique. He was ripped off by so many people, he couldn’t trust adults any more. That’s why he loved children, because they accepted him the way he was and weren’t out to get him. He had sleepovers because he never had a chance to be a kid, he was abused by his father and made to work non-stop.”

      What do you make of that argument? I don’t think it adequately explains his one-on-one sleepovers, his schlepping of young boys all over the world, or even his childish pursuits. He told Ebony magazine in 2008 that in spite of his fame at 11 years of age, “…all I wanted was a friend to play ball with…” yet Neverland didn’t have a play area for ball games and no child has ever mentioned playing ball (no jokes please) with him so how sincere was that wish? It certainly doesn’t explain all the child erotica and straight & gay porn they found in his bedroom!

      • CandyC

        Yes I know it’s not that simple! It’s difficult wrapping your head around the fact these nutjobs can’t see it in that perspective (well, most of them, it appears). I just think there’s still hope some might see it that way. Those fans’ reply to you was drivel, Michael is always an exception to what is and is not appropriate for and adult-child relationship with them.

        As for the Ebony magazine quote, I don’t buy it… it’s similar to how he complained he never found a woman to settle down with, despite the millions of fan girls and no doubt the many notable women throwing themselves at him.

        The fans can never come up with plausible replies, rather a myriad of nonsensical excuses based on his public relations scheme… Like I said, I bet all convicted criminals wish they were rich and famous like him.

  • The Marie Nicole letter speaks volumes doesn’t it?

    It’s all kinds of heartbreaking, although in many ways she was the lucky one… I s’pose?? I guess???

    Any way, it clearly illustrates the damage MJ did wasn’t limited to just the young boys in his life. Obviously not physical, but the emotional abuse (intentional or not) that he ladled out was irresponsible and extremely selfish at best.

    Great article btw.

  • NilsH

    You know if Jackson was really this helping, healing guy he proclaimed to be, and he got requests from sick children who wanted to spend a day at Neverland and have a sleepover with him, he should have dedicated a clean sleepover room for that kind of event. Separate beds, and a nightvision camera recording the whole night just to be safe from any kind of allegation in the future. He didn’t and made it all look very shady with alarms on the outside notifying him when someone’s approaching and adult magazines and stuff. Even if he were actually innocent he kind of caused his own situation to happen by being this reckless.

    Do you remember his 2005 trial statement?


    “I never intend to place myself in so vulnerable position ever again.” I think it was the first and only time when he seemed to be saying “okay, I got it now, I won’t do anymore sleepovers, just let me go and it won’t happen again.”

    • JessicaSideways

      “My children”, does he mean those three white kids he adopted?

  • I don’t know, but did anyone else find it creepy how the camera moved up and down his body several times?

    • To’Shari

      yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder whose behind the camera filming?

      • I can guess who is filming or directing 🙁

        • To’Shari

          if that’s case, of the person that might be behind filming this kid up & down, then this should be strong evidence of inappropriateness, esp… given all the trouble he gotten himself into and have to pay off multiple times…smh

          • To’Shari

            i watched it again. this time listening to the video in (with ear piece), I heard his voice behind the camera. He couldn’t help himself could he?.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Even if MJ wasn’t the one behind the camera, clearly these videos were made for MJ to have as keepsakes. Look how he told the videographer to zoom in on the face of the boy he’s arm wrestling, and how he filmed that little black boy playing the “whack-a-gator” arcade game. So if someone else was behind the camera when you see the panning up and down of that young man’s body, they knew it would be good to include those shots in a “for MJ” video.

          • To’Shari

            It’s just the close up view of the young boy back side looks a little too strange for me. Though this is MIchael’s personal video and knowing his issues when it comes to his relationship with young boys, the person (kinda slowly) panning this kid back Side, even if they just trying to show him holding Prince and Paris, it just looks like the camera was more focused on the boy “pants”, then focusing on the kids looking out the window from a overall shot, just sayin’ :-/

          • ShawntayUStay

            I agree. I was wondering what was the purpose of the panning other than looking at this guy’s body. It was just weird, esp considering that the guy looks like Anton Schleiter, who MJ said he wrote the song “Speechless” about — super gushy and romantic. Perhaps MJ thought it looked sweet Paris and Prince being held like that? If that was the case, no need to go up and down twice.

          • divapromo

            He can actually be heard sayin…. ohhhhhhhhhh yeah that’s sweet.

      • divapromo

        MJ you can hear him if you turn up the volume during that part.

        • To’Shari

          I wonder what was up with Mike and this filming/directing obsession? He told this to a lot of (if not all) his young boys about being directors in film and now he doing this with his kids PPB. Also the way he gets upset when young Prince (who was a toddler by the way) for not paying attention to his direction when he was showing Prince how to direct his infant sister. Now Prince I believe, maybe taking up filming in college (not sure though).

    • Neely

      He does it again at 12:23 when it’s just Prince and Paris, and theyre both standing on a chair. I feel like he’s trying to show how they’re elevated, or what’s causing them to appear tall enough to see out the window. I had to ask myself, if it were anyone else, would that seem suspicious. The answer is no. Not unlike asking myself, if this were a neighbor having sleepovers, would I raise my eyebrows? The answer is yes. In order to be at least moderately objective, with some modicum of common sense, for me personally, I have to ask myself these questions. Not just exclusively the ones which make him appear guilty.

      • Pea

        I understand what you mean, Neely. I did think to myself, “Are we viewing the camera’s body-panning on this young teen boy as sinister because we already believe Jacko was a pedophile?” Objectively speaking, that would have to have some truth to it, and, conversely, I am sure fans would convince themselves it was nothing or, if they did think it was odd, someone else was behind the camera and responsible.

        We’ve speculated whether that is Anton Schleiter, a boy Jacko wrote the song “Speechless” about. If so, then, yes, those body pans can reasonably be seen as “creepy”. To avoid starting on a false premise, even if it wasn’t Anton Schleiter, it still seemed odd to start from the teen’s feet and move upward — twice.

      • Neely, it’s creepy if it is in fact Anton Schleiter, a boy that MJ was very close to. This video was taken during Jackson’s “gypsy” period between the conclusion of the molestation trial and his signing up for the This Is It tour, where he traveled between Bahrain, Ireland, Germany and the US on meagre funds. It was during this period that he stayed with the Cascio family in their home, where MJ supposedly recorded some tracks which Frank subsequently sold for millions, and which are now subject to litigation due to questions over their authenticity.

        Back to the Schleiters: Jackson met the Schleiter family when he visited Germany in 1995 and became especially close to son Anton. As others have pointed out, he penned the romantic song Speechless after playing with Anton and his sister. Wolfgang Schleiter, the father, was an executive with Sony BMG music, hence the connection.

        Jackson flew to Hamburg in January 2006 with his 3 children, nanny Grace Rwamba and security and stayed at the Schleiter’s suburban home for a number of weeks. The father wasn’t present as he and his wife had separated. It caused a riot when fans found out where MJ was staying so I think the video with Anton was taken elsewhere. According to Randall Sullivan’s book Untouchable, Anton traveled with the Jackson party to Venice, Florence, the Amalfi Coast, Roma, and then on to London. MJ must have felt very comfortable in the young man’s presence, and I wonder if they shared a bed? That would be interesting as it could provide additional explanations of his sexuality i.e. MJ not being exclusively a pedophile but also being attracted to young men; or a case of “any port in a storm” in regards to his sexual needs.

        The most interesting part for me though was that in 2003, when Jackson was again accused of molestation, Roger Friedman asked Wolfgang Schleiter (the father) if he would say a few words in support of MJ, or to support him, but he declined http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/28/jacko-globe-trots-with-neverland-in-crisis.html

        • NilsH

          No, if you’re talking about the video above, it’s taken in 2000 in Switzerland. Prince and Paris were still toddlers and MJ was on his way to the World Music Awards. “You ain’t seen nothing yet..”

    • divapromo

      Of course. It’s also quite creepy how dedicated MJ was in teaching the art of filming and directing. So much so that in a interview when the children are asked what they want to be when they grew up Prince response was director. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gM6PIVVhIMw It certainly makes me wonder if this was his agenda. Brainwash, molest, and create a group of troubled directors to repeat the process. It is no secret Hollywood is prime estate for predators.

  • ShawntayUStay

    To me, that looks like it could be Anton Schleiter? The glasses and the height make me think it could be him. Interestingly, MJ said that his romantic song “Speechless” on his Invincible album was written about him.

  • Pea

    We were talking about Jacko checking out Anton Schleiter’s body, but there is something always very disturbing to me about Jacko having those two adorable kids (my heart melts when they are negotiating the “film” Prince is trying to shoot and when they eat strawberries at the very end) and isolating them, dressing them like dolls…. They looked like the brother and sister from “The Innocents”.

    I don’t doubt Jacko’s perverted cloistering of his little “white angels” triggered Paris Jackson’s borderline personality disorder and general fuckedupness. She seemed second fiddle to Prince, and even in Frank Cascio’s book, he stated he would watch Paris while Jacko would watch Prince. Both she and Blanket very quickly said Prince was the favorite, and you can tell Jacko was infatuated with Arnold Klein’s son’s appearance (hence the bleach job).

    I also suspect that Jacko bought Blanket because Paris and Prince were getting older.

    While I like that Jacko didn’t baby talk them (or perhaps if Jacko’s voice went any higher, his head would explode), I felt angry that he’d shut them away like that while he was high on drugs and having sex with “big brother”/stepmom Omer. Ought to be a law against weird pedo creeps having kids. 🙁 Debbie Rowe should’ve been jailed.

    • Fudhux

      I didn’t know that Paris and Blanket said that Prince was the favourite . But it does not surprise me. The fact that he bleached his hair is vile. I don’t get why nobody stopped him. Bleaching a baby’s hair ??? Hello ?? He probably wanted Prince to look more like Macaulay Culkin.

      And you are right about Debbie Rowe . This woman sold her children. I don’t care what anyone says. She didn’t do it because Michael wanted to be a father . She did it because he paid her millions. And the fact that he was accused of child molestation and she still left them is beyond me. Plus she was around him more so she must have seen things that people don’t know. I despise that woman beyond limits. He could have abused this boy that she had. Didn’t she think about it ?

      I don’t even get how Paris was OK having a relationship with that greedy bitch ( excuse me but I can’t help). If my mother did that I would never speak to her.

      • Melissa

        Yeah and the fans love her because she gave MJ what “he wanted the most.” At least Lisa Marie didn’t want him around her children alone.

        • Fudhux

          Yes MJ fans love her and I really don’t get it. Its like they don’t have a brain. Come on. She sold her children . She is not a surrogate since she took photos with them and even travelled with them and MJ. She acted like a normal mother for a bit and then MJ got her out o their lives. She sold her children . And I believe that’s why Paris has a love hate relationship with her because she know that she had her and her brother for money. She is confused and I can’t understand why the fans don’t see that. Its so obvious .

          I really despise that fat cow . I mean she was giving interviews about how people say she had children for money and that it hurts her and that she was manternal despite what people think. Like yeah right… She cares about horses more than her own children . She should be ashamed of herself for selling her children to a person who was accused of child molestation . It doesn’t matter if she believes she was innocent or not. Plus MJ didn’t even like her ….

          I prefer Lisa Marie even thought she was obviously used but she saw that later so good for her

  • michaeljeffrey

    I found this video (uploaded on youtube 1 or 2 days ago ) very interesting.

    • Joni Hector Storhammar

      Ok, that’s funny. John Landis, the movie director was MJ’s lover? Please. First time I hear this. Landis is married to a woman and has two kids. I seriously doubt he would be a closeted homosexual. Sure you can never know, but c’mon. They worked together on Thriller.

    • Melissa

      Hu? John Landis?! This is news to me. Of course he could be a closeted homo while married to a woman but I never heard about them. I believe there would be rumors at least.
      Interesting he/her didn’t talk about Jason Pfeiffer. For some reason, he seemed more believable to me than Thorson. Thorson contradicted himself a lot and talked about a “Thriller Tour”. There wasn’t a Tour with this name.
      Maybe he seemed more believable to the author of the video because he spoke up when MJ was still alive?
      Tabloids in my country in fact showed Omer as MJ’s lover, when he died.

  • Pea

    Wow…. Thanks for that, Yaso. That video is very disturbing and does not portray Jacko in a good light at all — there literally is no other interpretation besides seeing Bubbles as a naive victim of Michael Jackson’s weird predilections. The Bubbles character is absolutely a stand in for boys, and Sean Lennon says as much here:



    He says that the song wasn’t intended to demonize Jacko, but that video is something totally different. He’s obviously hiding something, in my opinion. For instance, the imagery of Jacko squirting a bottle of milk but it gets onto his lips, trickling like ejaculate? Oh and them licking the lollipop in the bathtub?!

    His defusing explanation couching the song — that Michael was just a “weirdo” — doesn’t justify showing Jacko as a demented predator unless Sean is upset about something. He also confirmed the typical pedophile “pump and dump” pattern:

    “And there was a sense that when Bubbles got too old, he’d have to be gotten rid of, because chimpanzees turn into angry adults or dangerous adults. And it just felt like that was something I could relate to in terms of the whole situation out there. Because there was something Michael liked about hanging out with kids, because they’re so innocent and fun. Then, when you become an adult, it felt like you were a chimpanzee: too old to play with anymore.”

    Alfonso Ribeiro said the same thing. (And by the way, if Sean identified with Bubbles, then he is, in fact, inviting the viewer to believe that Bubbles was him or any boy.)

    I think Sean is a lot like Mac Culkin: They know Jacko was a criminal but they feel sorry for him — this lonely, isolated, weird so-called man child — and don’t want to injure him…. But I think if Sean spoke out, he would inspire others to speak, too.

  • Andreas

    Last part of the lyrics:
    We both could not believe it was
    Like living in a dream
    We didn’t understand
    Dancing with Peter Pan
    What would be the result when we
    Turned into young adults

    Very sad lyrics. I realize the official explanation is that Sean probably felt Michael abondoned him when he wasn’t a young boy any longer, but its well written because it can also be read as their whole relationship became visible in a new light when as he got older.

    • Pea

      I actually think both “takes” are valid and occur together — the “aging out” explanation common with most pedophiles, and the explanation that Sean Lennon can’t shake the feeling that Michael Jackson really was a boylover.

      This was a telling snip from his NPR interview about the creation of the song:

      And I thought it’d be interesting to write about something that actually
      happened. It just felt right. I think I’d resisted much of my life
      talking about those kinds of stories, because they just seemed so hard
      to figure out how to translate them or relate them.
      And I just thought
      it was an interesting metaphor for what happened to a lot of Michael’s
      friends who were my age.

      And, of course, Sean Lennon “translates” and “relates” those “stories” about Jacko into a video so vividly underscoring the suspicion that dogged his “friend” for years! Bubbles as the metaphorical boy? All of it is so deliberate….

      • Andreas

        Yeah, I’m surprised how low the subtlety level is. Its not like he hides who he’s talking about. Fans are already angry at the video in the comments.

        “Bubbles Bursts” is great metaphorical term to call the general perception about Michael Jackson too, isn’t it? Its the pretty illusion that everything he stood for was so magic and beautiful, like he wanted to portray himself, and many wants to hold onto that image of him.. but when you realize who he was, and you no longer can deny it and the bubble burst. Pretty good song as well, I think.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Michael Jackson had a half-naked picture of Bryton McClare, but everyone (including MSM) focused on the bigger picture of McCauley Culkin and didn’t notice and/or care:


  • Andreas

    Not sure if I would say Sean was abused. I think the song and video is sort of interesting in the way that its very artistically ‘ambigious’ though. You could probably see what you want with it, because its quite open, although it certainly is implying quite a lot.

    I found some interesting quotes by Sean about the song/video, on his fb-page when he released the video, as he seemed to reply a lot to the comments:

    “I was there and the song is indeed strictly autobiographical. The point is that we (the kids), were all discarded when we were too old to play with, just like bubbles.”

    Notice he says “we (the kids)”, not just himself. Meaning he know he wasn’t the only kid this happened to.

    “Jesus how many times must I say this. Things were fucking weird, and the video is as weird as reality was, no MORE no less. He does not molest anyone in the video and if you think he does you’re just a retard. It’s obviously ‘awkward,’ but that’s IT!”

    This quote is kind of interesting, because he does not say Michael didn’t molest him in real life, he just said he doesn’t molest anyone in the video. Still, you could probably read it as nothing happened.

    To everyone reading this thread, YES, I’m weird but that was not the kind of ‘weird,’ I meant. And anyone who can’t tell the difference is either trying to not see it, or just a total idiot. And to the guy telling me what MJ would say about me? You have no clue as to what our relationship was like. I guarantee you don’t know what he was like either. He was not the soft spoken ‘it’s just ignorance,’ guy you see in interviews. There was that side, but he was also a serious and intelligent and edgy and smart person who would never in a billion years call ME ignorant. You perhaps, but not ME. If ANYTHING he might’ve asked me about it. But this is not a weak man. He made himself a zombie and a werewolf, have you forgotten? He would’ve been fucking psyched Fielding was taking the piss. It’s an honor so fuck off please.

    “No, I’m not, and id admit it if it were true, but the truth is things were just weird. So the song is as weird as reality was. No more, no less.”

    Okay, so both the song and the video resembles how weird reality was. Should we read that as literally or not?

    Now, the video depicts Jackson teaching Bubbles(meaning Sean) to dance, in a sort of awkward sexualized-ish way.. given candy in a creepy ‘grooming’ kind of way, clip with the milk even more so, and they’re finally shown in a baththub together, so if this happened in reality yes its a little bit beyond ‘weird’. In the animation bit they’re also flying in the bathtub to Neverland, to be met by the police and someone really resembling Tom Sneddon, and Jackson escaping by turning into Mecha-Michael Jackson.

    I also found it interesting that someone asked him about the Safechuck allegation:

    “Tell me about your take on the safechuck allegation, seeing as you probably met him.
    Answer: No idea what you’re talking about.”

    Is it believable that Sean doesn’t know about Robson or Safechuck accusing Michael? Or that he couldn’t bother to check up who Safechuck was(assuming he didn’t know)? The whole thing about his song/video and his comments borders on Michael Jackson being a pedophile and a groomer (even a molester) as close as entirely possible without actually saying it.

    My theory: I sort of suspect — because of something Corey Feldman said. Feldman is often asked why he won’t out his molesters names, and Corey said he would LOVE to mention names of his abusers, but at least as of today, he couldn’t get anywhere with the statute of limitation, but the guys he would accuse would probably sue the heck out of him for defamation. This would of course mean the estate, if the if one of these was Jackson, as they’re interested in protecting his name for branding purposes. Pretty unfair state of affairs. Corey has a point. So thats the reason Corey keeps quiet about his abusers.

    Wade Robson however is suing Michael Jackson, but his case against him as we know was thrown out because of these statute of limitations. Jackson has been dead for too long. Wade is getting some headway in suing corporate associates as he worked for Jackson as a kid, and that sure is interesting, but most of Jackson’s alleged victims didn’t work for Jackson, so they wouldn’t be able to do this. There’s therefore little to no ways to come forward about this. As things are.

    So with Sean, I wonder if the Bubbles Burst song/video could be about expressing the weirdness of his past with Michael but just enough to not getting into any legal troubles. Coincidence or not, its at least actually perfectly designed for this.

    If you look at South Park’s satire, they have sometimes get into very edgy and offending satire, they actually has their own lawyers hired to help them find these artistical lines to when they’re saying things that could get them into legal trouble. So its usually about finding that magic line. Like they couldn’t say Tom Cruise was ‘gay'(Cruise had sued people for saying that earlier), but they could make an episode where a silly Tom Cruise trapped himself in a closet and didn’t want to come out from it. They found the magical line.

    Last quote I saved from Sean, where he admits his experience with Jackson was something he describes as intense and something he needed to process.

    ‘Childhoods end, and Bubbles Burst…’ If you don’t think that’s from the heart you’re nuts. My time hanging w michael and bubbles was intense, fun and bizarre, it was also intense to write about. I had to in order to process that period of my life.

    • The Queen Of Swords

      I believe MJ groomed and victimized most of the pre-pubescent and pubescent boys that he kept close contact with for years — and this includes Sean and Corey F.

      I believe Sean is mostly still embarrassed about his victimization and still has positive feelings for MJ. He’ll hint that MJ molested him through his music and that music-video, but he’s not admitting it anytime so. He knows MJ victimized James and most likely knew James (he knew MJ from 1983 to 1990; James knew MJ from 1987-1992) like he said when he said he knew all the kids MJ knew.

      Feldman said he’d expose MJ when Katherine died around the time he was writing that book. Katherine + Prince/Paris/Blanket = The Estate.
      James, Gavin, and Aaron all stated they were given substances by MJ. Adrian McManus even said she felt he was getting them drunk. Why can’t he be one of Feldman’s perps along with John Wisdom & Alpha Hoffman? Feldman already admitted that he moved in with Haim’s third abuser Dominick Brascia because he was the only one in his inner-circle that never sexually abused him. He already stated he was sexually abused in a bed by a male friend in his 20s — who like MJ — often took him to DisneyLand and on adventures, and was his “way out” from a drug-addicted, mentally ill, physically abusive mom and a drug-addicted, neglectful dad, from ages 13-15.
      I just don’t get why no one else sees the very obvious.

      Sean and Corey F. both cannot get any legal justice. So they are quiet. It’s also alot better and safer than the stalking, harassment, death threats, and fuckery the crazed MJ stans toss at Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, and James Safechuck Jr. on a daily basis.

      • Andreas

        You have a very fresh, original and bold take on Jackson, Queen of Swords. I must say. Hm. Who knows. I think some of us just are struggling with two versions of Jackson’s relationship with boys.

        One version is that he usually chose one boy, perhaps even very picky, that he “fell in love with”, and stayed with for quite a period, and took his sweet time to groom patiently, and then eventually molested the kid when things seemed as safe as things could get. It would almost seem like when he was with Safechuck it was almost “monogamous” (and arguably with Jonathan Spence and Emmanuel Lewis before that). He even ‘married’ Safechuck, after all. Usually it would seem like he picked a “special friend”, someone who he dressed up as him, called almost daily when he had free time, wanted to take him on tour and so on. Perhaps he would juggle with 2-3 boys, but it could seem it was a longer grooming process before he initiated anything. Something that would make sense as he was a public figure(to put it mildly) and had to be careful and smart about it.

        The other version is that he really was that arch-pedophile with a shockingly low impulse-control that almost would run after almost every boy that visited Neverland, or that he came into contact with, just some more than others, so basically any boy could be in danger of his hands if they spent more than 5 minutes alone with him. Even Aphrodite Jones(on the Oppenheimer Podcast recently) said she had met people who claimed Jackson would fondle their sons in an elevator, and Oppenheimer had heard many similiar stories first hand. Stacy Brown’s version of Jackson also seems closer to this. Stacy as you know wrote the 20 victims, 20 settlements for 20 million dollar article, and has in other places said the known victims are just the very VERY tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you would side closer with this version of Jackson too? That almost any boys that were in contact with him were in immediate danger? And that there could actually be dozens and dozens and dozens of victims out there kept quiet with money, threats or just successful grooming?

        I’ve traditionally been more leaning on the first version, exaggeration is never a good thing, and strong claims needs strong evidence and so on, but I’m starting to wonder too. If the latter is true it would mean Jackson was a constant danger to himself, and that he would probably have people who would help him to keep his impulsive ‘problem’ under cover. Both in the 93′ case with Pellicano and in 05′ with Schaffel, Wiesner, Cascio it seems they were working on keeping his issues away from any legal problems and the media. To me it seems more and more like this is actually the case. Quite a few of his business associates knew about his relationship with boys, and tried their best to protect him.

        Frank Cascio even writes in his book that he often had to “protect Jackson from himself”. While he isn’t specific about what that means, I personally think that he actually may refer, among other things, to Jackson’s dangerous love and gravitation toward young boys. At least if we read between the lines. I actually think Cascio was Jackson’s guardian.

        As for Sean Lennon.. I don’t know. He could probably work with both versions of Jackson, as he seemed to be a ‘special friend’. I didn’t know they were that close before recently, but Sean said he was closer to Jackson and spent more time with him than most people. Thats definitely something.

        His Bubble Burst song, on the surface, to me seems to be more about him, just like Bubbles, being cut off coldly from Jackson’s close super-dedicated friendship when they turn into young adults. Which happened to most of his special friends when they hit puberty… as we know. There’s also another not-very-hidden layer where looking back at things seems more sinister and suspicious than he thought when looking back as an adult. In Seans words their relationship was “weird” and “awkward”, and something that was intense and needed processing. Obviously this doesn’t mean innocent, especially combined with certain imagery in the video. Depending on your definition of molestation it’s not dependent on anything sexual happening though. Gently and not so gently touching, exposing of nudie picture of women or perhaps even porn could very well be the case too, but is that molestation? Grooming probably, molestation no, or? Not all boys are as molestable either. Not sure how the song(or video) indicates oral sex or anal sex though? Could you explain?

        About Feldman. I read something you wrote earlier, and I think you actually might be right! If I got your theory correct, that is. So, Ron Crimson is John Grissom first and foremost, his old personal assistant. Grissom abused him over many years. Corey Feldman was being clever about Michael Jackson though, so he didn’t give him his own pseudonym, as he probably assumed (correctly) it would be too difficult to ‘disguise’ someone as characteristic and unique as Michael Jackson just by simply changing a name to Marvin Johnson or something like that, so he instead threw Jackson into the Ron Crimson character. So Ron Crimson is a mix of John Grissom AND Michael Jackson. Very well spotted. If thats what you’re saying.

        As for Corey Haim’s abuser, I read a pretty plausible theory that the guy who pulled Haim away from a set and sodomized him is none other than Charlie Sheen. When Haim died of overdose, it goes hand in hand timewise with when Sheen went totally crazy in 2010, when everybody was wondering what the heck was going on with him. He was thrown off that Two And A Half Men show for his more and more uncontrollable and aggressive behavior, a show very popular at the time with him in the lead role, and then he started making insane drunk online videos and basically seemed out of his mind with his cuckoo rants about “winning!” and so on. So looking back… it might actually have been his way of reacting to Haim’s death and all the speculation at the time.

        There was a lot talk about Haim having been sexually abused, and that lead to his drug use and untimely death. Sure could have been stressful to Charlie Sheen at the time, and enough to throw him on a harsh mental loop. It definitely makes sense, at least.

        • The Queen Of Swords

          Corey Feldman HATES Charlie Sheen with a burning passion because he says he negativelt effected people he knows. He groomed Haim into thinking man/boy sexual relations was “normal” and “what all guys do”, before sodimizing him (There are rumors going back to the 1980s of sexual contact between Sheen and Haim on the set of “Lucas”) … And Feldman would later date a woman with some psychological/emotional problems because Charlie used to date and abuse her in the past before Feldman dated her. Haim’s other two abuses are Marty Weiss (bluntly stated; some think Feldman is lying about this to cover for an even more powerful person) and a Dominick Brascia.

          Yes, I do believe “Ron Grissom” is BOTH John Grissom and Michael Jackson. The man he found on top of him after waking up after doing drugs at his house is Aplhy Hoffman. He owned a club for teen stars where drug-usage took place, and states his father is Bobby Hoffman (former head of casting for paramount pictures) when that is really is lover.

          I’ve read stories other mothers that contacted the Chandlers when their boys were abused but were too embarrassed to do anything about it, boys who were abused before Jordan and got something akin to an out-of-court settlement but not exactly that (some of which he used in a similar fashion to what some would call no consensual “One-Night Stands”), boys Jackson abused in Austrailia that Wade has knowledge of …etc. I believe he had low impulse control and I think Jason Francia — out of all his known accusers — shows this best. I believe their were some boys he was more physically/emotionally attracted to … But I definetly believe he had low impulse control like most Child Sexual Abusers …

          • Andreas

            Your theory on why Sheen went nuts is good, but assumes that Psychopath (whom Denise Richards believes got a Porn-Star he cheated with killed) has a conscience.

            Hm. Yeah, I suppose I was talking about effects of conscience, didn’t I..? Or a twisted way of showing guilt, at least. I still think so, but even if Sheen really didn’t care about Haim or his death, he sure could have went crazy because he was worried and tense about being outed as an abuser of a child star that died of a drug overdose. People talking about it being because of trauma of child abuse, and there’s always been a question who really raped Corey Haims. If that came out about Charlie Sheen he knew he his career and reputation would dive off a cliff obviously. Imagine the headlines. That could be enough to drive him a bit looney too. Psychopaths care about themselves at least surely? 🙂

            I’m sure inside the show-biz some people suspected Charlie Sheen was Corey’s abuser, as there always whisperings and rumours. Both Coreys might have confided who they’re abusers were to some people, and so on. That said, you might be right about Charlie Sheen being a psychopath. He reminds me a bit of Donald Trump. His charming attitude, ‘gut honesty’ and rude humor seems to throw people off that he’s really kind of cynical self-serving narcissistic prick. Sheen having HIV could play a part, but I don’t think most people who get HIV acts the same way from that alone? (Unless I’m mistaken. Its not like I know a lot about the effects of HIV.) Charlie’s behavior in that period was really something quite else though.

            Just for conversation: Do you consider Michael Jackson a psychopath too? Do you think his self-declared love for children was a ‘play’, or something genuine? And oh, on what level do you suspect Michael did something to Corey? I haven’t read his book yet. Just read about its contents, and read about people speculating.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I definetly believe Michael Jackson was a Psychopath, actually. I don’t know how much of his supposed “love” for children was an act, because Pedophilic Child Sexual Abusers claim to see their abuse as “a form of love”. Even as he died, he proclaimed his love for children and his sorrow for himself because of a lack of a childhood. But I definetly believe he was a Psychopath. His grooming of boys and their families shows this. His sexual exploitation and sexual victimization of the boys — even while sometimes staying over at the boys’ house — shows this. His “throwing away” of his young male “special friends” shows this.

            Look at this for an example:


            His death threats towards Adrian McManus and Corey Feldman (and indirectly Blanca Francia) also shows this.

            Bill Cosby is definetly a Psychopath as well.

            I believe Michael may have fondled/masturbated Corey F. in his jacuzzi and preformed oral sex on him in his bed. His 1993 interrogation, “The Two Coreys”, numerous interviews, and his book all combined gave me this impression.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I don’t think Chris Brown is a sociopath. I think he is a product of his environment, likely not learning how to “appropriately respond” to stressors, and may not have handled to trappings of fame that well. But I think he is capable of change with the right guidance.

            In the DSM, there is a strong exhortation to remain culturally aware before rendering a diagnosis of ASPD, because in some cultures, aggression and impulsivity are not necessarily viewed negatively and in those cases, they are seen as effective tools for survival. This is also meant to apply to urban environments. I think your 50 Cents of the world would fall into that category as well. “Get Rich or Die Tryin'” is a especially apt example of what the DSM is referring to.

            So the real question becomes are these traits stable, rigid, unchanging and unmalleable, or can they be removed given the introduction of more (dominant) culturally appropriate behaviors?

            I agree, I think MJ was a psychopath and a narcissist, but psychopaths are the most extreme narcissists! MJ used people for his own gain — whatever that was — and tossed them aside or labelled them “snakes” or “racists” or whatever other terms to devalue them if they attempted to get back at him. At the same time, he feigned timidity when expedient. Not to mention his complete disregard to his crazed fans bullying and harassing of once-loved special friends and anyone else who didn’t toe the Jackson party line.

            What do you think about Janet Arvizo, the mother of the 2005 accuser? She too fit a large number of psychopathic traits as well. I believe she was a psychopath and was teaching her boys to manipulate and lie to do her bidding, including shake down people for cash (like her fake fundraiser for Gavin’s cancer bills when in reality they had no bills because they were members of Kaiser Permanente, and she instead funneled the money through her mother’s bank account; her admittedly false accusation of sexual battery in the JC Penney case; and her welfare fraud of about $18,000), and very likely falsely accusing MJ of molestation.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I agree 100% about Chris & 50 cent, but I highly doubt those two can change or would ever want to.

            I have heard that argument about ASPD on the DAM.

            It’s weird. I definetly think Janet Arvizo displayed Psychopathic traits (like her abusive ex-husband who hit her; Star Arvizo picked up that behavior from their biological father like over 90% of DV abusers). Didn’t she use to abuse Gavin and lied about being sexually harassed? If she ever did force Gavin and Star to lie about MJ molesting Gavin, she fucked over his numerous victims (and just CA victims, period) from being believed by the general public. Ugh. That pisses me off!!! I was always on the fence about this, and I still think I am, despite the fact I understand 100% why the Jury voted “Not Guilty”.

            But I haven’t fully dismissed Gavin as a possible victim 100% yet, because of James’ statements about being given wine that “tasted sweet” and Aaron Carter’s statements about being given Alcohol and Weed by MJ.

            The Arvizo case just leaves me puzzled as it did in 2005 when I was a kid myself, I guess. Because logically, I would think it’s one of the 1% of false allegations. But I can’t shake off what James’ complaint states at one part nor can I shake off what Aaron Carter was recorded saying about MJ before he lied and said he never said those things.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Why do you say it like Charlie Sheen is uneqivocably Corey Haim’s abuser? Don’t you think that’s a little out-of-left-field, especially since you don’t use qualifiers? I know Sheen is a reprehensible man whore, and there has been an allegation that he’s performed fellatio on a grown man whilst doing drugs (This was caught on tape) and that he’s slept with transsexuals, but where is the hard evidence that he’s a child molester/statutory rapist of male children?

            Denise Richards is not a reliable source because their divorce was highly acrimonious and that causes many to say unconscionable things without proof. There has never been any child pornography found on his person or on his electronic devices, so how can we know this allegation is even true?

            My point is, I think it would be best to use “allegedly”. Corey Feldman is a hot ass mess how, in my opinion, should be taken with a grain of salt. He obviously likes attention for all these nebulous accusations he directs at various people.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I definetly think Corey likes the attention. The physical abuse by his mother, neglect by his father, bullying by his peers, sexual abuse by several men, obviously turned him into a Narcissist.

            Rumors of Charlie Sheen sexually abusing a pubescent Haim pre-date Denies Richards allegations, “The Two Cores”, and Feldman’s 2010 statements.

            He’s a tad bit annoying, but isn’t it a bit harsh to refer to him as a “has-been”. That Industry and the Media/Press chewed Haim and Feldman up before spitting them out like they do to almost every Child-Star. Most of them are annoying, but I kind of have sympathy for them (as long as they don’t harm anyone) because a combination of alto of various factors made them that way.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Why are you saying Bryron McClure was a victim?? Any evidence besides that website “Michael Jackson and His Boys” on WordPress? I should mention that that individual, from Germany, came on here calling themselves “Michael Jeffery” linking his site, and saying Omer Bhatti was MJ’s “boy wife” and step father to his three kids. That guy pretended he was researching for a fictitious 14 year old sister who was an Obee fan, but he was looking things up for himself. “Michael Jeffery” was likely a pedophile in disguise.

            So I’d be cautious using a likely pedophile’s site as a source on Bryton McClure. There’s no evidence he was molested. Plus, his post on McClure was garbage. No facts whatsoever.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            It’s that creepy picture MJ had of a half-nude boy and wondered why the media didn’t care and was only paying attention to the picture of MacCaulay Culkin. I noticed that FAR before I saw that blog. (I notice that blog isn’t 100% reliable. Alto of the the things typed there isn’t factual.
            It’s run by a creep???!!! Thanks for the heads up. I’ll never go there again. Wow! This reminds me of NAMBLA’s fascination with MJ …)

          • Andreas

            Hm. I don’t think that Michael Jeffrey guy from the wordpressblog was a pedophile necessarily. He first came in here with a lot of info on Omer Bhatti, showing Omer had contact with Michael Jackson a beyond what the MJFacts article originally estimated. Omer wasn’t ‘cut off’ after young age, in other words. Which might seem to be correct and actually is quite interesting. He knew this since his sister was a fan and had a lot of pictures to prove it. This was fine to point of, of course.

            His comments became a bit weird however, because he insisted while Omer was molested as a child, he and Michael continued to be ‘lovers’ after Omer grew into legal age, and implied this was fine. Shawntay reacted quite strongly to that, I remember. Its possible he was just trying to be ‘objective’, and leave the morals and ethics of ‘right and wrong’ out of it. Thats how I initially read it, at least. Because yes, its of course true that Michael and Omer could have been legally together when Omer was of legal age, but it certainly is a bit strange thing to say, at least so lightly as he did when it possibly came out from the context of a child molestation relationship. If that makes someone a pedophile to say, I’m not sure though. Judge yourself.

            I think his blog is okay besides that, but he does the a little bit reckless thing, which you border on to as well, needing very little evidence to claim Michael molested a boy, so every boy Jackson was in contact with is another victim. Just that Michael called someone “rubba” isn’t proof of much for example, even if its true Michael called boys he liked that.

            Its such a serious claim to sexually molest someone that there needs to be something more substantial than just small signs of patterns. But again, it sort of depends on what kind of pedophile Jackson was, doesn’t it? If he really did molest almost any boy he hung out with, its of course more likely Bryron McClure and others he only had slighter contact with was victims too. I think you might be right Jackson had a low impulse control though, and he would touch a lot of children. It also depends on what is deemed molestation.

            I personally don’t think Michael Jackson was a psychopath, if I’m honest. Not saying its not an interesting claim though, but I actually don’t think so. To me he just seemed like he was actually very capable of recognizing pain and suffering in other people, especially children in orphanages and so on, something psychopaths usually can’t. I don’t think that was a play. I think he suffered a lot too himself. I see him him more as a tragic figure, not an evil figure. Psychopaths also enjoy seeing people suffer, and they get some kind of pleasure from it, and I don’t think there’s much signs Michael did this. Its true however that psychopaths often are good at pretending and mimicking sympathetic traits for personal gain, and Jackson often lied to gain sympathy, so that could be a loophole to ‘work at’, but I’m not persuaded overall. I think his compulsive lying was more part of his sometimes quite childish behavior. Children often lie to get away from things. Its easy, if a bit shortsighted. If you want to compete on top of show business things really are cutthroat and brutally capitalistic, and I think Jackson simply learnt that from an early age. Show-biz is not really a glamorous place outside of Jacksonland either. That he cut off people left and right could also just be a sign of paranoia. He had his skeletons in his closet, besides being very famous and rich, so he had all kinds of reasons to be paranoid about who to trust.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Quite a bit of victims maintain “sexual relationships” with victims into adulthood. They are still groomed. I still see it a problem, because it began with grooming and sexual exploitation. He’s sounds just a little wee bit twisted for seeing nothing wrong with a victim still being controlled by their victimizer into adulthood.

            I think it’s quite possible that MJ was the kind of child sexual abuser that abused all the boys he “befriended” for years — not every boy he came in contact with nesscicarily. I never stated that. MJ was a very selfish person, and he even slowly removed himself from Terry George’s life because he most likely thought he’d have trouble grooming him. If that doesn’t state a lot about MJ I don’t know what else does.
            The idea that MJ saw his “friendships” with boys as the same as a man sees his romantic relationships with women is simply not true. He was grooming multiple boys at once and abusing multiple boys at once. He lied to Jordan, Wade, and James, and told them they’d get into legal trouble too — making his fears theirs, in the cases of Wade and James of whom believed his words. Maybe sometimes his hormones fooled him into seeing some of his attractions as love, but it only lasted as long as he was physically attracted — which was when the boys were per-pubescent and pubescent.
            I think some people that are former fans don’t neesciarily want to completely “demonize” Jackson. But the fact is Jackson was infatuated with these boys due to his sexual attraction to them. He objectified them. Nothing more.

          • Pea

            “The idea that MJ saw his “friendships” with boys as the same as a man sees his romantic relationships with women is simply not true.”

            In the main, I wouldn’t want to make a comparison between normal sexuality and a paraphilia — they are quite different — but I don’t think it’s at all impossible that Jacko viewed his “special friends” as romantic partners. For instance, men can be quite committed to their partners and still have affairs or they can juggle multiple lovers at once — even though you’d have to consider selfishness or narcissism as a driving force behind those types of infidelities, it wouldn’t make each of those partners any less “romantic”.

            I do think Jacko substituted boys for women. He clearly wasn’t interested in women. He seemed fearful of that kind of sexuality — or at least viewed it as anathema. This doesn’t mean he wasn’t objectifying his boys in a typical pedophile pattern (after all it’s still a paraphilia); it just notes his rejection of a normal sexuality for one more pleasing. His marriage to James suggests control as well as James’s place as a romantic interest.

            I would also add that his dumping of boys when they got too old is consistent with a “fetish”, but, again, it, too, wouldn’t necessarily preclude the idea that he viewed his “special friends” as “lovers” in the moment they were special. Many people select and will reject partners for similarly superficial criteria.

            “I think some people that are former fans don’t neesciarily want to completely “demonize” Jackson.”

            It’s good to hit the breaks on any person you’re studying or researching and remember they were/are people. I think that’s just ethical. I am a former fan, and I think having once been affectionate towards the man himself, but are now able to recognize his flaws, prevents a sort of “pitchfork” mentality –the view where everything he did becomes especially evil. It’s possible he was “evil” but it’s highly unlikely….

            I agree that he probably had many more victims than his five accusers (asterisk near Gavin Arvizo). I doubt it’s hundreds, though — Jacko was fairly shy. Even James Safechuck, who I think Jacko was probably instantly attracted to, stated that Michael was very shy and quiet when they were first around each other during the Pepsi commercial filming. Maybe that means nothing or everything, but I would think a shy, introverted temperament, at least initially, would prevent him from racking up “hundreds” of victims.

            By the way, that employee was Robert Wegner, and he said the ballpark of kids sleeping with him was 100 during his tenure. That’s quite a lot, but I don’t subscribe to the school of thought that he molested every kid he slept in bed with, or even most of them.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I hate to get personal but I’m a victim of child-on-child sexual abuse multiple times at age 5 at an Elementary School, and sexual abuse by a doctor during a surgical procedure as a teenager in a Hospital.

            I know alto about various kinds of creeps, due to years of studying them.

            I don’t think Jackson was 100% evil. I think he was an artistic & musical genius with an enormous amount of talent. I know he went through childhood emotional, verbal, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse he endured at the hands of his father and other men. I even have a great deal of sympathy and emapathy for him for that. Just like I have sympathy for my first abuser. With that said, I think he showed ALOT of signs of Psychopath as an abeliein his behavior towards others (even if you do not believe he was a Pedophilia-Child Sexual Abuser). I also think he was probably an acquitance-molester to most of his victims (the number I believe most likely reached the hundreds if Jackson was a serial Pedophilic Child Sexual Abuser since 1974), a familial-molester to a few relatives, and a stranger-molester to even ewers. That’s just my opinion, though. It’s not concrete fact, and we may never know …

          • Andreas

            He objectified them. Nothing more. His “love” for them was coldly over once they went further into puberty.

            I understand your point of view. What pedophiles actually feels about the children they groom is sort of one of the most difficult questions around. Like in, do they see them, as you propose, as “objects”? Or do they like the kids for who they are? Do they impose some sort of fantasy-version onto these kids? Do they “love” these kids, if even temporarily until some age? Can they “care” about them (besides their lust for them)? Can these things differ greatly between pedophiles, or are they all pretty much the same?

            I’m not claiming I know. There are examples of molested children telling their molester nobody has ever been nicer to them than them. There’s this concept of nice guy molesters, which, if I understand Ken Lanning correctly, actually is the majority of molesters.

            If we focus on Jackson, there is on one hand this thing all these stories about the kids being cut off after a certain age, and Jackson just focusing on some other now younger kid instead, which might seem cold and brute. OK. But there’s another side of Jackson which sort of involves becoming these kids “sugardaddy”, meaning he would promise to look out for these kids. In the grand jury of the Arvizo case Gavin’s grandmother Maria Ventura took stand and explained her grandsons behavior when he got back from Neverland, which was one of anger and conflicted confusion. Gavin felt he had to go back to Jackson. Why? Because Jackson had invisioned their future together and Gavin’s future, and that he would pay for his college and make him a great entertainer. Gavin at the time dreamed of becoming a stand-up comedian, so it probably meant that. Jackson did the exact same thing with many of the other boys too. Its a strange but familiar pattern. With Wade Robson Jackson said he wanted to make him a “greater director than Spielberg”, besides becoming a music prodigy, and with James there was some kind of promise of making him a music video director.. With Jordy he had all sorts of visions, as he wanted to take him out of school, live with him on tour, and tutor him himself, see the world, let him meet “great people”, and so on.

            I guess the question is if Jackson did all this because he truly cared about these boys(in some sort of strange way), or he just did it to seal their secrets shut? To keep them dependent on him so they wouldn’t spill the beans? This could certainly be up for debate. I would understand anyone picking the cynical option, and its probably something to it, but I personally don’t think its out of the question that Michael Jackson’s ideal form of company, at the end of the day, really was a young boy.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Unfortunately I understand acquitance-molesters very well. As a victim/survivor of Child-On-Child Sexual Abuse by an Acquitance-Molester (another student at my Elementary School) and of sexual abuse by a Doctor as an teenager, I’ve researched alot about Sexual-Predators.

            Though I am still baffled by Pedophilic/Hebephilic Child Sexual Abusers. I don’t even think their actions are 100% understood by even themselves at times. I do think in MJ’s head he “cared” about some boys mores than others — even though he groomed, used, and “dumped” all of his victims.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Not sure how legitimate this is. But it’s a 1997 conversation between a man claiming to have been a victim of MJ’s and others on Google-Groups. Some even speculated this man was Corey Feldman.

            In recently read a late 1990s article that claimed multiple “tips” came in claiming that MJ drugged many of his victims before molesting/raping them. Not sure how true or untrue that was, but this conversation reminded me of that article.

          • Here is the correct link to that thread.


            Although interesting, I’m not buying it.

          • Pea

            LOL. I don’t buy the story “StopHM” was peddling either. It was just in 1995 that the pedophile Rodney Allen was trying to convince Hard Copy that Jacko molested a Canadian boy — and he’d been claiming things about Jacko since at least 1993. For all we know “StopHM” could be his crazy ass, or someone just as demented.

            The only thing in that entire ancient thread that caught my interest was this comment by “Jules”:

            Re: Corey Feldman. Feldman was one of the ‘sleb boys who hung around Jackson when that was considered “cool.” Also, I believe Corey Feldman was interviewed about the Jackson molestation allegations and he said that Jackson always behaved perfectly, etc. HOWEVER, Latoyah Jackson (who
            unfortunately may be the “normal” one of that family) says that Michael never liked Feldman (after meeting him anyway) and considered Feldman an annoying hanger-on.

            That seems consistent with Corey Feldman’s Jacko experience: Michael just never seemed interested in him and Corey has consistently denied being abused, even though he did say they went into a Jacuzzi (without anything amiss occurring), that he was shown nude people with venereal diseases, and that Jacko asked to bring pornography to a sleepover at Corey’s house. “Jules” adds that perhaps Corey was too mature for Jacko…. Maybe that’s true — he apparently didn’t get too far with him and, in Corey’s words, abandoned him.

            I think he tired quickly of boys he couldn’t “conquer”.

            Also, and consistent with his current behavior and style of clothing, it’s believable that Corey Feldman was a “hanger-on”. Anyone who associates with a Michael Jackson impersonator who believes he’s Jacko’s secret biological kid has serious problems.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I saw that too, and considered it.

            Who was the MJ impersonator that believed he was Jackson’s secret child? That guy in Feldman refered to in his interview with Sway?

          • Pea

            B Howard is the impersonator (or whatever he is — wannabe look alike?) I’m referring to. When they read his alleged DNA paternity test results at that press conference, Corey Feldman was there, dressed like an impersonator himself.

            All of it is truly embarrassing for Feldman. Just for the record, how do we know he was ever molested? He’s pretty disgusting, in my opinion, for putting his supposed friend Corey Haim’s business in the streets. I wouldn’t be surprised if Feldman has some weird fetish, or he thinks being a victim makes him more interesting or deep. Has anyone ever been arrested? Has he gave one name that wasn’t an allusion to someone who may be real?

            Ugh, I can’t with that loser. He’s a coward and a nut job…. And maybe a liar.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            He’s on record stating that he was a victim of CA since 1993 in his interrogation with Santa Barbara Police looking into allegations against MJ. The names he claims are abusers have been edited out by numerous Media sources.

            Corey Haim on “The Two Coreys” also confirms Feldman is in fact a CA vuctim that was sexually abused when intoxicated/”sleeping” in a bed.

            Feldman is an ass … But almost everything he says checks 1987.Corey Haim talked of his own abuse on “The Two Coreys” and in an interview shortly before he died — and it all sounds alto like what Feldman wrote in his book.

            The ONLY thing that is questionable is the nature of MJ’s friendship with him (on MJ’s side) in 1985-1987.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            He named Marty Weirs as Haim’s 2nd abuser …

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Feldman, IMO, still talks of his sexual victimization as if he were still an adolescent boy. He uses phrases like “I take full responsibility for what happened. I take full blame” and “I was molested and I say, yes, I allowed it to happen … but I was a child”.

            He is still riddled with so much guilt and shame that I doubt he sees it as making him “special” in a positive way. No one ever does. He needs intense psycho-therapy. He was a pubescent boy. He was a groomed and intoxicated pubescent boy, at that. He needs to know it wasn’t his fault … I wish he would realize this …

          • The Queen Of Swords


            I’m not sure what to make of it, but I’m keeping an open mind.
            I believe MJ was sexually abused as a boy. Victim-turn-Victimize Child Sexual Abuse victims often abuse like how they were.

            I’ve heard/read Katherine’s family/Gary Residents/Others claim Joe Jackson abused him as a boy, that Bobby Taylor that groomed/slept in the same bed as/abused him as a boy, that Joe & Katherine were star-struck and let MJ stay over at Billy Preston’s (a Gospel singer that was later convicted of raping a man in his 30s and a 16-year-old boy) house where he abused him, and that Clifton Davis abused him (rumor going back to the 1970s). I heard/read that Jermaine Jackson, Katherine’s relatives, Jordan Keith (Steeltown Records Mogul), and Diane Diamond (who received tips) claim that Joe pimped him out to Industry creeps.

            He may have abused boys in numerous ways …

          • Andreas

            Good tip to use the old news-groups as resources! I’d almost forgotten about them, and they don’t show up as results in normal Google searches.

            About Charlie Sheen being Haims sexual abuser. I found something quite interesting on the old news-groups. First, lets look at this dailymail article from 2016. Corey Feldman reveals it was on the set of Lucas things happened with Corey Haims. They were both around 14 at the time.

            Feldman also wrote in the book about Haim having sex with adult men on the set of Lucas and The Lost Boys, sharing a story he claims Haim told him one of the first times they met.

            ‘At some point during the filming [of Lucas], he explained an adult male convinced him that it was perfectly normal for older men and younger boys in the business to have sexual relations, that it was what all “guys do,” wrote Feldman.

            ‘So they walked off to a secluded area between two trailers, during a lunch break for the cast and crew, and Haim, innocent and ambitious as he was, allowed himself to be sodomized.’

            Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3612911/Corey-Feldman-defends-sharing-Corey-Haim-rape-story-explosive-Hollywood-pedophile-interview-criticizes-late-actor-s-family-refusing-speak-against-son-s-abusers.html

            Now, I found this post on a newsgroup. This post is dated all the way back in 1994, and I think that was before the allegations about Haim was revealed to the public(?).

            I heard from a few sources, that Corey Haim and Charlie Sheen had a “fling” during the making of Lucas. Apparently is was Haim’s first time. After a few “sessions” they stopped doing whatever it was they weredoing! Then apparently the tension between the two was pretty strong an they refused to see each other off set.


            I have to admit I’m zeroing in on Charlie Sheen being Haims abuser. Things seem to point that way, at least.


            When it comes to this “StopHM” guy, I think its quite interesting that some guy seemed to try to spread information anonymously on the net. He spread this on many many groups too, it seems. Its the internet though. so anyone can post anything. So it could be someone with inside information who didn’t dare put his/hers real idenity on the line… oooor it could be just some wacky internet stuff not to be taken seriously.

            None of the present accusers of Jackson has ever claimed to be drugged by him, so its sort of a left-field claim that Michael would do this. So, I just don’t know.

            Furthermore, if its actually Corey Feldman writing this there’s just too little to base on. Besides, I wouldn’t really fathom how Corey would obtain such information in the first place. If it was real and true it would have to be someone with some really close connection to Jackson. Someone who would see boys coming in and out of his bedroom, and would see these types of drugs being ordered and added things together somehow. I don’t really know. It seems a bit farfetched, but who knows.

            If Corey Feldman was molested by Michael Jackson I’m still not 100% certain of. As I’ve said before, my biggest clue is that a lot of his actions around the allegations doesn’t match his comments about not being touched by Jackson. To me its just that something doesn’t add up about the whole thing. He says the closest Jackson ever touched him was like “slapping his knee”, which sounds almost a bit too innocent. Still.. there was several sleepovers together, and Jackson demanded there to be porn. It all sounds too odd.

            Then there’s thing about Michael wanting to sue him because he thought he was writing a book about him, and then there’s Corey telling Diane Dimond on Twitter that he feels their roads will cross sometime soon. Again, just odd stuff, if we’re to believe nothing really happened.

            I’m just speculating, but if he was one of these kids who got a secret settlement from Jackson(which is an actual rumour btw), it could explain why he wouldn’t, or legally couldn’t, reveal something sexual happening, but still allowed himself to run around talking about “dangers” in Neverland and it not being a place for children, revealing Jackson showed him pictures of nude children with diseases and sleeping in bed with Jackson, and so on. Doing this would perhaps not reveal any actual molestation, but still would help out in showing some red flags about Michael’s behavior with children. That has sort of been my suspicion.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Yes. Charlie Sheen (the rumors of this occurring on the set of “Lucas” go FAR back to the 1980s), Marty Weiss, and Dominick Brascia are Haim’s abusers.

            John Grissom (Look at his IDMB page!; “License To Drive” & “Dream A Little Dream” are the ONLY two movies he appeared as extras in!!!; Feldman stated he got his main abuser small roles in those exact same movies!) and Alphy Hoffman are two of Feldman’s abusers. I do believe MJ was one of them because in his book “Ron Crimson” was described as a man in his 20s. John Grissom was not. “Ron Grissom” was described as a man that took Feldman on adventures and to Disneyland — like how MJ was described in his book. He stayed with Dominick Brascia because he “was the only one in his inner-circle that wasn’t molesting me”!! What about Michael Jackson? Why would he stay with Haim’s 3rd abuser over his supposedly non-abusive “friend”??? According to reports going back to the early 2000s, MJ mixed prescription pills in his lliquor — similar to the toxic-cocktails “Ron Crimson” gave Feldman. IMO, “Ron Crimson”= Michael Jackson & John Grissom.

          • Pea

            If you have Corey Feldman’s book, do you think you can give a direct quote of the page(s) that have these details supposedly indicating that the fictionalized “Ron Crimson” is Jacko?

            Corey is so massively unreliable, likely due to his drug abuse and faded, non-existent career that makes him very attention seeking, but, if you can, I would really like to read those parts!

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I believe that “Ron Crimson” is both MJ & John Grissom. Another one of his abusers is Alphy Hoffman who owned a nightclub for teen stars.

            I don’t own his book. My opinion was formwasfrom alto of quotes directly from “Choreography”, along with numerous interviews he has given over the years.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I thought the same.

            BTW, while Feldman didn’t confront hid main abuser when he was being abused at ages 13-15, he confronted the man and threatened to his him in broad daylight at age 16 after it stopped.

            I do believe MJ would give Feldman out-of-court settlement, because unlike popular belief MJ was no idiot and VERY methodical and calculating.

          • Andreas

            Oh yeah, Jackson was definitely calculating. I actually think Michael really believed he could just give money to people to make just about anything go away. I’ve heard quite a few people say Michael would just call ’em up asking “So, what do you need?” I’m not even talking about potential victims here either. Just anyone, who he’d, lets say, heard say something critical of him.

            When it came to his potential victims both the boys and their families would typically get houses, cars, trips, toys and just about anything as gifts. Its not unreasonable to assume he wasn’t just giving expensive things away for absolutely no reason at all. There was likely some self-interest involved, and it was probably not a coincidence that these very families had young sons Michael seemed fond of.

            About Corey Feldman, I found something potentially explosive yesterday. Maybe… A document. Strangely enough just something I had saved on my computer, and looked at out of the blue, but I don’t remember where I picked it up. Possibly here on MJFacts. Anyway, it seems legit. I’ll attach it.

            Its an old letter to Anthony Pellicano from someone censored, possibly a lawyer, and its refers to a 600.000$ settlement with a “child actor & dancer” in July 1992. The name of this person is censored, but I’ve been scratching my head if we’re really looking at evident signs of a settlement with none other than Corey Feldman.

            So, why is it Corey then? Right. Now, there’s only three child actors I know Michael Jackson was ‘seeing’, and that was Macaulay Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis and Corey Feldman.

            To my knowledge Macaulay Culkin was no dancer, so its probably not referring him. We can probably rule him out. Emmanuel Lewis could dance, although I’m not sure he was ever ‘working’ as one, so I’m doubtful its natural to describe him as a “dancer” pr say. He was a child actor though, for sure, but I think 1992 was well beyond their prime time together. I don’t think its him, personally.

            Corey Feldman however was publically known both as a dancer and a child actor. So he fits the bill the most of these three.

            It did however occur to me that it could possible refer to James Safechuck though. He did act in the Pepsi Commercial with Jackson, and perhaps other commercials, making him sort of a “child actor”, and he could dance, pretty good too, although I’m not quite sure he was ‘known’ for by any stretch. La Toya and Stacy Brown both claimed to have seen a large settlement to the Safechucks though, so maybe?

            The problem is that the Safechuck settlement has been rumored to be right after the Bad Tour in 1986, meaning 1987 latest, or around those days somewhere. Also, the Safechuck settlement was supposedly 1 million dollar and to Safechuck’s FATHER. This particular letter talks about a 600.000 dollar settlement in July 1992 to the claimants MOTHER. So, it doesn’t really match up neatly with the alleged Safechuck settlement. It seems to actually be a different settlement from what I can gather.

            So is this signs of a settlement with Corey Feldman.. Who else could it be? It would confirms the rumors.

          • Pea

            Regarding that document (which was in one of the UK Mirror’s articles about the investigator who either interviewed or had a tape of the August 1993 interview with the Lemarques), I don’t think that refers to Corey Feldman. It was rumored to have referred to the child actor/dancer Brandon Adams, who starred in Jacko’s kid version of “Bad”.

            I can’t recall where but, according to fans (who naturally pounced on those FBI docs stories James Desborough at the Mirror wrote), there was a story where Brandon repudiated the rumor he was molested or paid off. I think his mother was also referenced in the article.

            So, I’m pretty sure, if even real, that doesn’t refer to Corey Feldman.

          • Andreas

            Alright, thanks for the info, Pea. I wondered if there was any others child actors and dancers I didn’t know about. Yeah, seeing as Brandon Adams was 13 years old in 1992, it could very well be referring to him. Seems like a ripe age for a Jackson victim. Better chance its him, yes.

            Still, considering that if Brandon and his mother actually repudiated anything like this happened, I’d say things could still be open to speculation that it still could be someone else. (And Corey also was an actor+dancer.) So, Brandon Adaims could either be lying about there not being a settlement/molestation, or it really is someone else they are referring to. If we assume this letter refers to a settlement that actually happened, of course. As long as we don’t know for sure, I don’t see any reason to completely rule out that it could have been Corey.

            The letter also mentions a bunch of other children that’s supposedly got paid off. If its to be believed Jackson actually paid off a LOT of children and families.

            If Jackson really had 20-30 victims or more, making him a bigger predator than I prevously though, I really have problems understanding why Corey, after multiple sleepovers(including porn), was miracously “spared”. It makes little sense to me, anyway.

          • Pea

            Here’s a link to a discussion about the Mirror story on a fan website — the link contains the comments about Brandon Adams: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/did-the-fbi-have-evidence-that-michael-jackson-paid-off-dozens-of-young-boys-to-silence-them-after-he-sexually-abused-them/

            Supposedly the original name was “Brandon Richmond”, and Roger Friedman speculated it could’ve been Brandon Adams…. So, probably not the most reliable interpretation. 😉

            I don’t see why Jacko would have “silenced” Corey Feldman anyway — wouldn’t that have kept him silent for good? But there he was in 2003-2004 spilling all the tea. I still don’t think, if that document is real, it was Corey Feldman. It doesn’t seem like it would be him.

          • Andreas

            Thanks. Right. I’ll check it out.

            I don’t see why Jacko would have “silenced” Corey Feldman anyway — wouldn’t that have kept him silent for good? But there he was in 2003-2004 spilling all the tea.

            Okay. As I said earlier, and do keep in mind its still speculation:

            A settlement would keep a victim from talking about a molestation that happened, as thats the deal, but there could be a loophole in such a deal. If a molestation happened and Corey was somewhat smart, and cared about other young boys being molested by Jackson, he could still have talked loosely about stuff around the molestation with Michael Jackson, without mentioning the actual molestation. Right?

            You know, sort of like he did. Like mentioning of these books with nude sick children, about sleepovers in the same bed, and that Michael demanded there to be porn, alcohol.. or that Jackson threatened him. By saying these things he’s not saying that Jackson molested him, and therefore not breaking any rules of the settlement, but still making people aware of ‘red flags’ and so on, and in a way warning people about letting their children stay alone with Michael. Thats sort of what I’m saying could have happened. In my opinion if that was the case, most of his other actions would make perfect sense too.

            I suppose you still take his own words literally though.. that he wasn’t molested but found some of this stuff alarming in, er, retrospective, or something to that effect? Its fine to think so, I guess. Hmm. I just don’t know what to make of some of the other stuff though.

            Just the thing that he wanted to obtain contact with Diane Dimond literally saying he felt their ways would meet up soon, would make no sense, unless Corey was about to reveal something. If nothing happened, what motivation could there be?

            I haven’t read his book though. Perhaps it would reveal things more. Not sure if I’m going to read it, but as Queen said, Ron Crimson is a character in the book that is easy to identify as his ex-assistant Jon Grissom(Corey gives the reader quite a hint, and you can find him on IMDB, I did this too, and that just based on quotes online..), but there’s parts of him that doesn’t suit Jon Grissom, which would suit Michael Jackson more, like trips to Disneyland and so on.

            I still don’t think, if that document is real, it was Corey Feldman. It doesn’t seem like it would be him.

            How would you assume that? There’s not a whole lot to go by. After all, its just a legal letter mentioning a settlement. Nothing more. I just noticed it said both child actor AND dancer, and Corey is one of the few of Jackson’s friends that has been doing both, and was ‘quite’ known for it. If he’s good or bad at either is a seperate matter though, I suppose.. 🙂

          • Mahoney

            Corey was never a dancer – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex7CmuStrKo – Sorry bud. 🙂

          • Andreas

            Good point, good point. Have you seen this one though, Mahoney? Surely, it would put all your doubts about his dancing abilities to rest? Actually, it could probably put anything to rest..

            But to me this was his shining moment. His magnum opus. You might have seen it already, but since it never really gets old…


          • Mahoney

            No, I’ve never seen that! Ha! Amazing! I sit corrected… the talent pours out of him doesn’t it? It’s as if God took over the body of Bob Fosse!

          • ShawntayUStay

            Less Fosse, more epilepsy……

          • Pea

            LMAO. You’ve got to be joking — sure, he dances better than I do, but that’s not saying much! I love how Howard Stern was making fun of him, and it would be sweet if Feldman wasn’t in on it. I think by that video it’s self-evident he could never properly be called “actor/dancer”. 🙂

            It’s clear he has always been utterly obsessed with Jacko, and the comment by “Jules” comes to mind: Corey Feldman was a “hanger on”. While I won’t go so far to say that Jacko didn’t like fan boys (clearly not the case), fully grown, untalented fan boys he probably didn’t care for.

            Maybe Jacko got tired of him, hence why Corey confessed to feeling abandoned when Jacko stopped calling and changed his number.

          • Andreas

            Hah. Well. Nah, I genuinely just think the whole clip is bizarre.. in a entertaining way. Perhaps its not for everybody. I enjoy the sort of ‘so bad its good’ type of deals. I actually didn’t take it as Stern was making fun of anyone though. He just seemed to goof along. I have no strong opinion if Corey’s a good or bad dancer. I would have guessed he was alright though, but I don’t know anything about dance, so I’m not exactly the one to ask for expert opinions. To a degree its just a matter of taste, I would assume. I think Corey is alright otherwise, but bla bla, who cares, etc.

          • ShawntayUStay

            God, when has Corey Feldman not been a sweaty Michael Jackson impersonator?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I don’t know. But I doubt it. I believe there was some DNA or settlement, if something occured. But this 1992 out-of-court settlement involved a wanna-be actor/singer who was also instructed to stay away from Movies, TV, and Media in all forms. I think this is a victim we have never heard of in connection to MJ.

          • Neely

            It seems legit until you notice the misspelling of legal jargon which immediately puts it into the ‘suspicious BS’ category. It seems to follow a rather well spoken and knowledgeable pattern of legal fast talk……until you get to that one glaring misspelling. Then, all bets are off. Libel is not spelled liable. Bummer-ama.

          • Pea

            I actually agree with you (although, to be fair, it seemed to be personal correspondence of some kind). While I think the Lemarque transcripts are real, for me, the main problem with the documents from that story was that they were all in different fonts! I know — it could be small and maybe nothing, but it was pretty odd to me. How many people really change what fonts they type with? Not many….

            Also, the “settlement” went from $600,000 to $600.000. That poor boy. :/

          • Andreas

            Hi Neely. I think you have to keep in mind its not the actual settlement you’re reading, just some guy sending a private mail to Anthony Pellicano about an alleged settlement. I can’t imagine every single mail people in that field is picture perfect.

            If its all fake, well… its possible. To me its just that when I see things like this I’m sort of confused why people would go to such lengths to fake documents like that. We also know Jackson has been known to do out-of-court settlements, as he did with the Chandlers and the Francias. I think its quite possible there are others not as known to the public.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I agree. The date, July 26 1993, at first makes you suspicious because it is so close to the whole Chandler affair breaking they media, but then you think it’s likely that Pellicano was investigating everything as he worked to sort out Evan Chandler. I think it’s real, just with typos because it seemed like whoever was writing was trying to remember the document he’d read and was reciting it from memory.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Don’t forget “danceer wantobe” instead of “dancer wannabe”!

          • Neely

            Haha…right! I’m a big skeptic as you all probably know by now. I mean, the document is intelligently written and could easily be persuasive……UNTIL you get to that dang misspelling. All bets are now off and this halfwit ain’t selling shit, lol. I’d say majority of lay people know this liable vs libel misstatement. Certainly its forgivable……unless you’re trying to sound like someone you ain’t, and I feel like that’s the case here. Like, if you’re gonna have your 10 year old son write a doc for you, be sure to proof it. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            You are such a skeptic! 🙂

            So you don’t believe it’s real at all?? I feel I’m of two minds: one hand, I think it’s real because, well, it reads as legitimate personal correspondence. On the other hand, they claim MJ has reportedly paid off boys and their families since 1992 and then they list a whole bunch of kids, and it’s only the next year?? That makes me skeptical; he ran through that many boys in only the span of a year?

            I’d like clarification on that.

          • ShawntayUStay

            What do you think about the fact the document mentions “child actor/ danceer wantobe [blank] AKA [blank]”?

            So it’s clearly an individual who has some kind of stage name that’s more recognizable than his regular name. Does Corey have a stage name? and if not, who was close to MJ with a stage name?

          • That AKA jumped out at me too. I’m wondering who that would refer to.

          • Andreas

            According to IMDB Corey has had some silly nicknames, plus sometimes referred to as “Cory Feldman”, but nothing besides that. I was initially wondering about Safechuck, as in James Safechuck AKA Jimmy Safechuck, but his name doesn’t seem to fit in there. Its a long name. Corey never had any stage name to my knowledge. He has released some music but under its always under his actual name.

            Another catch about it being Corey is that he was 21 in 1992. (The clip with Howard Stern I posted is actually him that exact year.) He was not a kid anymore obviously… Of course, one can still play around with the idea that this was around the time of their infamous ‘fall out’ and if there was molestations prior years Corey started being difficult to Jackson first in 1992, resulting in a late settlement, its not impossible, but its still a bit strange that the settlement was made with his mother then and not him. It kind of sounds more like someone who was still a kid if its the mother who’s dealing with the settlement.

            I think the “wantobe” is a bit strange too. Corey was not a wantobe child actor, he definitely was a quite successful childactor by most standards. Perhaps the wantobe only refers to the “danceer” part of it, but, well… Not sure what to make of it. If its a wantobe it sounds more like someone younger just starting out.

            While I’m not ruling out there could have been some sort of settlement or pay-out to Corey at some point, I’m having doubts about this mail in particular referring to him. Even if I have no clue what other dancer and child actor it could refer to. Brandon Adams sounds like a better bet maybe.

            Not sure if anyone else tunes in to the Ed Opperman Podcast. He’s an old private investigator in Hollywood, and he very recently had Mike Par / WadeRobson Alleys on(actually, pretty good!).. He earlier had Aphrodite Jones and Diane Dimond on.

            Ed Opperman mentioned both in the Aphrodite Jones episode and in the recent Mike Par episode that he heard a lot of rumors as a P.I. about payouts or settlements to kids from Jackson years before the Chandler incident in 1993. He doesn’t bring much details though, but since the Stacy Brown article (that supposedly was based on lawyers doing economy of Jackson’s use of money) also talks about many many pay outs/out-of-court-settlements/”gifts”, I’m of the impression there was others than the Chandlers and the Francias. Thats sort of why I think this mail might be an actual mail sent to Pellicano. There’s some corraborating stuff going on from different angles, at least. 🙂

          • Andreas

            Thanks. Yes, might be where I got it. Interesting article. Quite a bombshell, really..

            So, it mentions a huge file of thousands pages collected by agents and investigators, with info that supposedly shows possible evidence of series of victims, perhaps up to two dozen victims. It has all been given to the FBI.

            There’s an unnamed detective(“sleuth”) that worked for Anthony Pellicano that said:

            “I was hired by him[Pellicano] to find out where the fires needed putting out and, in this case, where allegations would be coming from. But I have never worked on a case with as many potential claimants as the Jackson case.[…] By the end we had at least 10 boxes of documents about Jackson.”

            Most interesting in the context of the Corey Feldman debate is this sentence though:

            The files name 17 boys – including five child actors and two dancers – Jacko singled out for abuse.

            If there’s actual evidence out there that there might be as many as FIVE child actors that has been potentially molested by Jackson, I’d say the odds of one of them being Corey Feldman is amped up by quite a few notches.

            The PI confirms that one of the two dancers is Wade Robson. The rest is a guessing game.

            Gosh… if Wade Robson gets his lawsuit in 2017 I suspect a lot of this stuff will be presented in full flesh.

          • Pea

            If you think Corey Feldman is lying about Jacko molesting him, how do you know he’s not lying about being molested in general?

            I tend to think Corey Feldman was like Terry George: a boy who experienced some inappropriateness but ultimately was never molested.

            This whole “Corey Feldman debate” is just dumb, with all due respect to everyone busying themselves wondering intently if he was diddled by Michael Jackson. No one has provided any reasonable evidence to hang their speculations onto, and I’ve been waiting! Using a tabloid story of dubious quality is really not good enough — we don’t even know if that document is real; it could’ve been typed up by James Desborough himself the night before hitting “publish”!

            At any rate, Corey has denied being abused; he didn’t hang around Jacko like other boys did (indicating Jacko didn’t favor him); and there’s no one to suggest otherwise that he was molested by Jacko. This is different than Mac Culkin or Brett Barnes, who’ve denied it, but other people have made claims opposing their stories, namely Jordie Chandler. Omer Bhatti has denied it, but he was always with Jacko, dressing like him, living in his house, and sharing his bed. Corey never received 1/100th of that kind of ardor.

            So, what else?

          • Andreas

            If you think Corey Feldman is lying about Jacko molesting him, how do you know he’s not lying about being molested in general?

            That is a strange question, Pea. Are you debating epistemology now? 🙂

            Obviously there’s a lot of kids you too think is lying about being molested by Michael Jackson too, and I’m sure you have your suspicions and opinions why they haven’t been coming forward. Our only difference of opinion is just that I think it involves another person. That is all.

            Furthermore this article is the one that actually was investigated, wasn’t it? Nephew Taj Jackson from 3T complained about the article claiming it was bogus(or “inaccurate”) to IPSO, wanted it removed, and his complaint was rejected, meaning somebody looked into it. Somebody also claimed the evidence was “impeccable”. So, what do you make of that?


            I think it might very well be true. It involves a PI that worked for Anthony Pellicano, and it mentions a thousand pages file that has been sent to FBI. To me it seems like more than the run of the mill tabloid article, and by the sound of it, it could all be presented in Wade’s case. I think Ron Zonen also talked about a lot of unpresented documents they had at Santa Barbara Police that could be presented in court. Its possibly the same documents. If it is real it does mention five child actors, like it or not. Its quite possible one of those could be Corey. I personally suspect so, but I have never claimed “I know” or that I have evidence beyond reasonable doubt, or anything of that sort. I think I’ve been quite clear when I’ve said its speculation. There’s simply loose threads I think is best explained by assuming something happened.

            This is different than Mac Culkin or Brett Barnes, who’ve denied it, but other people have made claims opposing their stories, namely Jordie Chandler. Omer Bhatti has denied it, but he was always with Jacko, dressing like him, living in his house, and sharing his bed.

            I don’t think I’ve ever insisted Corey was the same type of ‘special friend’ as some of the ones you mentioned. You are, as far I can tell, implying Jackson only molested ‘these types’ of his closer little friends? Or..? I guess thats the big question. We would agree the kids who matches these patterns you describe probably are victims, but did he molest any others? Do you think thats out of the question? Don’t these type of guys supposedly have a quite low impulse control?

            We know about Jason Francia already. Him and Michael weren’t terribly close at all. He was not in that ‘special friend’ category, yet his story involves being touched/fondled while watching cartoons at the “hideout” apartment, and the Francias received a hefty settlement. The Ulrike story is another story involving Jackson just being alone with a little boy dancing for a little while, and the boy said he was touched. Corey’s relationship with Jackson wasn’t as close as say Omer Bhatti, but it was much closer than Jason Francia and that Ulrike boy.

            Its puzzling that you compare Corey to Terry though, because while Terry only had a phone-relationship with Jackson, Jackson sort of did make an awkward move on Terry. As much as one can by phone, anyway. One could assume he would have done the same thing if they shared a bed for real. Weren’t you proposing Jackson had no real interest in Corey?

          • Pea

            Amusingly, Stacy Brown seems to be related to many of the stories that upset the Jacksons, specifically 3T — it’s incredible how he continues to escape censure! Was that “someone” — the US source — Stacy Brown? He, too, had the same yarn about $200M in secret payoffs since 2013, I believe, and published that story for Page Six, so if he’s the source then you know how I feel about his credibility, which is nil.

            Even if it’s not Stacy, and I’m pretty sure it is, a tabloid’s claim that a “someone” stated the evidence was “impeccable” means very little to me. It’s not to say it’s certainly false — all of the info could be true — but it points out that because sources are usually protected and can remain anonymous, that “source” could literally be anyone. Therefore, I wouldn’t use it to prop up my position.

            As for the other story about the PI (you’ve conflated the two), I have strong doubts about the quality of its information. I think Shawntay pointed it out in another comment, but in the span of one year — 1992 to July 1993 — Jacko suddenly paid out over a dozen boys? I find that incredible. What would be the point of that? What during that time would’ve inspired Jacko to start writing checks? I could understand a flurry of monies paid following the scandal, but before? It really doesn’t make sense to me.

            I also suspect that there aren’t any documents in possession of Santa Barbara cops have that speak to these putative payoffs. I think that is fiction. The 2005 case attempted to pile upon Jacko every morsel of inculpatory evidence that could be found; it was almost to the point of performance art or satire. Certainly — and I do mean certainly — if they had something credible that suggested multiple payoffs to boys, they would’ve presented it. It would’ve at least have been discussed in the filings or the pre-trial hearings. If they had something and it was not presented, it was most likely not of a quality that could convince a jury….

            “We would agree the kids who matches these patterns you describe probably are victims, but did he molest any others? Do you think thats out of the question? Don’t these type of guys supposedly have a quite low impulse control?”

            I don’t think Jacko lacked impulse control, which is where our concepts of the man — rather than a more general understanding of pedophiles — sharply diverge. People who lack impulse control would never be able to have gotten where he got. I think Jacko was meticulous, careful, diligent, methodical; he controlled everything, including himself. In the main, I don’t think he was diddling boys he wasn’t strongly attracted to. He had “boyfriends”, not one-night stands and “fuck buddies”.

            It’s not unreasonable that you mention Jason Francia — but I’d argue that Jason’s experience was very minor, didn’t involve sex, was a secretive “grope” on Jacko’s part, and happened only 2-3 times over years. If you want to argue the Ulrike claims, which may be false, that boy only got a “spittle kiss”. Both boys were much younger, too, than Corey Feldman, right?

            So with Corey’s proximity to Jacko being not in the “special friend” realm but allegedly above Jason Francia, he still isn’t in the “masturbation”/”blowjob” zone. He’s in the inappropriate conduct zone, like showing an uncensored book of venereal diseases zone — Jacko’s feeling out the kid to see if he’d be receptive to more or if he’d be the right “fit” to be a boyfriend. (By the way, how do we know that book was even sexual? Oddly timed, sure, but Corey Feldman praised or bashed Jacko depending on climate changes, so his characterization may be suspect.)

            There’s many reasons, incredibly, to trust Feldman’s word that nothing, besides the VD book, hot tubbing, and a handful of sleepovers, ever happened to him.

            As for Terry George, I defined exactly why I mentioned him and Corey Feldman together: two boys who experienced something inappropriate but were not molested. I could imagine Jacko behaving more wildly with Terry had he had more access (Terry was gay, so Jacko could’ve sensed a connection or possible opening for himself during their in-person interview), but Jacko was 20-21 then and less “big”? That could be ample reason to be more impulsive….

          • Mezza

            This trial, if it goes to trial will be spectacular with information. They will be sitting on a mound of stuff

          • Mezza

            this might be a dumb question, sorry, I am still getting grips with everything, but do you think there were more then two settlements?

            In 2005, wouldn’t all the settlements have been shown? Or did Jackson only reveal Francia’s because he was testifying? and kept everything else quiet? They have to show their witness list prior right? so Mez knew who would be or could be called?

            Did he not have to show his financials? and if he didn’t, why didn’t he? Can the cops not get companies/ people to have to show all their financial activity if it it could be a possible bad acts? especially considering that they knew that Mj had settled with Chandler and Francia? So why didn’t they get a warrant (if that is how you do it) to do that?

            Or was it because the prior bad acts only came in after trial started?

          • Andreas

            this might be a dumb question, sorry, I am still getting grips with everything, but do you think there were more then two settlements?

            Yes, most likely there were many others. The reason we only know about Jordy’s is because the allegations leaked and the world was watching. When it didn’t go to trial, it was inevitable that it people would find out what happened because of the interest, and it got known there was reached a settlement. The Jason Francia settlement it seems went under the radar until the 2005 trial, where Sneddon managed to get Francia to come and tell his story.

            About others. There’s the long rumored settlement with James Safechucks fater, a garbage man. Its known because La Toya in the 90s talked about a huge check paid to a father who was a garbage man. It probably happened.

            Then there’s this article:

            Supposedely lawyers has boxes with finecombing of Jacksons economy, proving many settlments.
            It had two different sources. Stacy Brown at Pagesix.com, and TheSundayPeople(british newspaper), who independently saw these papers and talked to these lawyers, before writing these articles. If Wade gets his trial(looks that way) these documents will likely be presented in some kind of way.

            The source claims Michael Jackson paid many settlements for over two dozen boys for 200 million dollars. Its almost too much to comprehend, right?

            There are different kinds of settlements however, and we have to differ with these when it comes to Michael. There’s the settlement that is the result of a civil trial. Then there’s the out-of-court settlement, where lawyers and a still a huge process is involved, but a settlement is reached instead of taking it to court… But with Michael there’s a third kind of “settlement”. He would pay families himself, through giving them cars, houses, shopping sprees, expensive trips, or sometimes just through very large checks. How these dealings came about is unknown, but his financial records shows he did this many times.

            Did he not have to show his financials? and if he didn’t, why didn’t he? Can the cops not get companies/ people to have to show all their financial activity if it it could be a possible bad acts?

            Hm. Yes, I think the prosecution had a good view of his financials in 2005. (Interestingly he was actually broke at the time!) I think for the prosectution to have signs of settlements(/huge checks/huge gifts) be useful would be if they could get victims to come forward, as with Jason Francia. If they didn’t Tom Mesereau would most likely just make a case that these were gifts and really just showed how generous and nice Michael was.

            It was similiar to what happened in the prior acts at the trial. The prosecution had several witnesses, people who had worked at Neverland, that would testify to seeing Michael Jackson being inappropriate or even molesting young boys. Except for Jordy who fled the country, these were Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin. Now, Tom Mesereau and the defenseteam answered this by getting these boys to come in and be defense witnesses, and they all denied Michael did anything to them. So in a way it backfired on the prosecution.

            I think the prosecution would have led a similiar situation just accusing every family Michael gave a lot of money or gifts to as victims. You sort of need the victims to come forward themselves first. With Michael Jackson that has shown to be very difficult.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            There have been rumors to more than two settlements. Wade’s lawyers wants them all un-gagged.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            What do you think of this MJ song? It creeps out most people (including me).


            Since “Speechless” was about an underage boy, this could be as well …

          • Pea

            Unlike “Speechless” and “Stranger in Moscow” which were written by Michael Jackson, with the former expressly inspired by playtime with a young boy, “P.Y.T.” wasn’t even written by Jacko. Could he have been thinking about a boy while singing it? Sure — anything is in the realm of possibility! — but that’s highly unlikely.

            I think you’re not giving Jacko enough credit. He was a performer and showman, and therefore could write songs or perform songs that were about normal heterosexuality with zero problem. After all, there are millions of fangirls who believe he desired sex with women and more than a few of his personal acquaintances (interestingly many black men) who believe the same thing.

            Young boys were not on Quincy Jones’s and James Ingram’s minds when they penned the tune….

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m slipping. I should have looked up who wrote that. But Jackson was a musical genius that wrote so many of his songs I just naturally assumed he wrote that.

    • The Queen Of Swords

      “Bubbles Burst” blatantly hints at MJ’s kissing (blowing kisses to a frightened “Bubbles”) boys, performing oral sex on boys and making boys perform oral sex on him, anal sex preformed on boys by boys and abuse during bathes with MJ, if you read between the lines.

      What other conclusion would a sane, rational person come to if he himsold stated “Bubbles” was only a metaphor for boys???!!!

    • The Queen Of Swords

      Feldman stating in 2010 that he’d expose MJ when Katherine died said it all, IMO … That and that his story shares one similarity to James’, Gavin’s, and Aaron’s & what Adrian McManus had to say …

      • Mezza

        hey do you have a link to this interview?

  • Jeanne D’Arc

    Hello there! Very interesting blog,
    I wanted to know : What do you think about Michael’s relationship with women? More especially with Miss Diana Ross?
    In fact, Michael literally idolized that woman, since very young, even to the point of wanting to look like her (what by the way I find a bit disturbing for a man). So I feel like his disastrous romantic disappointment with her may have been the turning point of his sexual deviation.
    In fact, I believe that it is what made him definitely change his mind (or at least altered his vision) about women. Despite the fact that he has claimed to contrary, everything leads to believe that “Dirty Diana” is about her. He portrays a very negative image of women in it, as well as in the clip “Who is it”, in which you can see the name “Diana” appearing again at one moment.

    I’ve also heard a rumor saying that when Michael was young and staying at the Supreme’s house for an education, Diana one day surprised little Michael wearing a dress, high heels and a wig, singing and pretending to be her in front of the mirror.

    Do you believe Michael loved women, or that he envied them? The last would explain why he would always stay with them in a “no-romantic” way to me…

    • Pea

      Jeanne, I could’ve swore you left a comment before and then you deleted it! I hadn’t even gotten a chance to respond to you.

      About Jacko and Diana Ross, I have no idea why so many fans believe she is essentially a terrible woman who could have done various things to a young Michael. I’ve even heard suggestions that she had sexual contact with him when he was a boy — I think all of it is nonsense. Diana Ross is a respectable woman and mother, not a predator. Some of Jacko’s fans should be ashamed of themselves. 🙁

      I think Jacko loved and admired Diana Ross, and probably did have something of a puppy love crush on such a glamorous star. I don’t think he was any more sexually attracted to her than he was Elizabeth Taylor! (Jacko was a homosexual, in my opinion, and I believe he liked beautiful women, like Diana and Liz, because he wanted to be like them — his plastic surgeries resembled both divas, if you’ve ever noticed. Two stories came out a few years ago: one confirmed Jacko had a shrine to Liz and tried to resemble her facially; the other spoke to a friend of Diana Ross who stated Diana had once caught Michael in her makeup!) So the “rumors” about Diana Ross being the man-destroying temptress of “Dirty Diana” are, to me, pretty absurd. Jacko has always stated that “Dirty Diana” was inspired by his days touring as a member of the Jackson 5, when girls threw themselves over his brothers and led his father to repeatedly cheat on Katherine Jackson. That is a much more logical story than thinking it is Diana Ross, in my opinion.

      In answer to your last question, I don’t think Jacko really liked women. Most of his comments about them have been negative. He enjoyed friendships with them but most of those female friends were the type of women who’d never approach him sexually.

      • Jeanne D’Arc

        Thank you very much for your answer Pea!
        Yes! I let a comment earlier on but I decided to delete it because I thought my comment was irrelevant to the article in question x)
        About Diana, I think most of MJ’s crazy fan girls just envy her, and therefore feel jealousy since she had a huge place in Michael’s life. They need to blame her for everything…
        I too start to believe Michael was a homosexual. Do you actually believe he had gay male lovers (of his age at least)?
        As you say for the surgeries, it is also true for the make-up, and it became more and more dramatic as the years passed by : he desperately tried to resemble a woman, his voice, the wigs…
        I didn’t know about the shrine of Liz! Do you have a link or something so that I could see? :O

        Thank you again for taking the time replying anyway 😉

        • Pea

          No problem, Jeanne. 🙂

          I personally think it isn’t so much that the fans are jealous of Diana Ross, but more that they are so desperate for Jacko to have been attracted to women that they are willing to libel Diana in the process in order to sexualize their relationship — meaning that it doesn’t matter that the only time contact could’ve been plausible was when Michael was a pubescent boy or teenager.

          As for male lovers, I don’t know — he was probably afraid of homosexuality to an extent, not wanting to accept himself. I think it’s possible; there was a story I believe J. Randy Taraborrelli noted in his book about a female reporter from TIME magazine visiting Hayvenhurst, and Jacko had been in his room, which was dark at the time, with a male “friend”. His parents were a bit embarrassed, according to the reporter, and she said Jacko’s hand was very sweaty when she shook it.

          I’m not sure what that means (well, I have an idea!), but it always seemed self-evident to me that he was attracted to males and enjoyed/preferred them as companions. For instance, he hired his bodyguards Chris Carter and Joey Jezacek (sp?) randomly after just seeing them: Chris across a crowded casino because Jacko liked his smile, and Joey, who was 17 and blond, after seeing him in a surfboard shop. That’s just odd; it sounds like something a heterosexual man would do, right? Hiring babes as employees and eye candy. Not to mention Jacko requesting gay porn DVDs from Marc Schaffel!

          But I think Jacko preferred young boys. He was a homosexual pedophile and gay, in my opinion.

          The link about Liz? I have it somewhere. Let me find it…. EDIT: Found it: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2011/06/elizabeth-taylor-closing-act-201106

          • Mahoney

            “Jacko’s hand was very sweaty when she shook it” – You’ve never heard of his one hand that sweated profusely?

            Due to an abnormality at birth, the pores on this hand would excrete vasts amounts of liquid as he performed or got nervous. It’s the reason he passed out during the “One Night Only” rehearsals, he’d lose so much water via this appendage it nearly killed him on several occasions.

            It’s his Achilles heel, or to put it correctly his Michael’s Hand.

            It’s the main reason he started to wear the glove… It would act as a diaper. If you look at the image attached, you can see how it would expand with the water during the legendary Motown performance. It’s a subtle change, but you can see it if you know what you’re looking for… Just look closely.

            I’m actually working on a theory that MJ didn’t die of an overdose, but in truth drowned in his own sweat. His hand was so bad in the end, he had to sleep with it dangling over an empty swimming pool.

            I didn’t see any pool at Holmby Hills… Did you Pea?

            *mimes putting an object down*

            See that, that’s me resting my case that is. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay


            So from the image above, the glove acts as a diaper, and the microphone acts as a…tampon??

          • Mahoney
          • ShawntayUStay

            Well, how else would you explain the near 40X enlargement of MJ’s microphone?? You think it’s just a simple manipulation of the image by someone adept at Photoshop just for laughs, don’t you? NOT LIKELY! It very clearly was a specially made microphone with the absorbancy of 7 jumbo tampons!

          • Mahoney

            Hahaha! Even his microphone was weird!