Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c09/h05/mnt/128867/domains/michaeljacksonallegations.com/html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160
Archive | FAQ RSS feed for this section

Was Michael Jackson’s semen found on magazines with nude children?

A couple of months ago I got informed by a fan about another claim that is being circulated in Internet folklore about the Michael Jackson case. Then some time later I got confronted with the same claim again, so I feel the need to take a deeper look into it here. The claim is that Michael Jackson’s semen was found on the nudist magazines confiscated from his home during the 2003 police raid.

The significance is, according to Jackson’s critics, that these magazines contain some images of nude children. The implication of this Internet rumour is clearly that Michael Jackson was looking at magazines that had photos of nude children in them and masturbated to those images.

It has to be noted that while these vintage nudist magazines (mainly from the 1930s and some from the early 1960s), do contain some non-sexual images of nude children (mainly in the context of families being photographed), their focus is overwhelmingly on nude adult women. So even if the above claim was true it would not prove that Jackson masturbated to images of children, but the claim is not true at all.

The type of nudist magazines we are talking about:

Sunshine_and_Health-230x325 wood_nymph Sunshine_and_Health3    images2 images oldmags.cgi wood_nymph_04eden

When I first heard this claim about Jackson’s semen being found on these nudist magazines I was very perplexed because I have read about this case extensively, I read the court documents, the trial transcripts but I have never encountered such an information.

So where does this claim come from?

I went back to the trial transcript again, read the expert testimonies, read about what was said about these nudist magazines at the trial by the prosecution’s own experts and police officers and I found nothing at all. Nothing that mentioned that Jackson’s semen was found on these nudist magazines. If fact, not even his fingerprints were found on them and when Janet Willams, the police officer who confiscated them, testified on April 19 about them she admitted she had no way of telling if Jackson ever even opened these magazines [1]. Obviously, semen from Jackson on them would be a clear way to tell that he had opened them if such an evidence existed. And obviously if this evidence existed it would have been mentioned by the prosecution at some time in court. Instead the prosecution spent days on tedious fingerprint talk (found on Jackson’s heterosexual magazines) and analysis, but they did not make any mention of his semen being found on nudist magazines.

By the way, from Janet Williams’ testimony we also learn that District Attorney Tom Sneddon either was mistaken or deliberately lied in one of his motions and also in his opening statement about the location where the nudist magazines were found. He claimed that they were found in the upstairs bedroom section of Jackson’s room at the base of his bed along with his hard core pornography. Officer Williams, however, clearly refuted that claim in her testimony. She said that she found these magazines in the downstairs, sitting room portion of Jackson’s room in a box that otherwise had all kind of other books, art books etc. – not pornography. [1]

Eventually I realized that it was a section of a certain prosecution document that provided the inspiration for this story about ALS (alternate light source) findings supposedly “proving” that Jackson’s semen was on these magazines. However, the claim in that particular document is NOT what it was later turned into in Internet folklore. Whoever put that twist on it either did not understand what ALS was and what it could and couldn’t prove, or they deliberately and maliciously twisted the document’s meaning.

Here is the document in question: ALS detector

The document simply states that because ALS testing showed some fluorescents on the surface of these particular magazines they sent them to the Santa Barbara Department of Justice to further testing. It does not say it was semen, let alone Jackson’s. ALS cannot determine such things. Apparently someone simply jumped to the erroneous conclusion that these fluorescents can only be semen – and only Jackson’s – although these old, vintage magazines were clearly bought second-hand. In actuality, the prosecution document itself states that such flourescents can be anything from hair to fibers, as well as fluids.

Moreover, during the 2005 trial the prosecution’s own expert witnesses further explained what ALS is. It is not a detector of semen exclusively like some apparently like to represent it – it detects ANYTHING biological. Hair, fiber, saliva, blood, semen, sweat – just anything of biological origin. If such a fluorescent shows up on one surface of an item then the item is sent to a laboratory for further analysis (eg. DNA analysis) to see what it is exactly and whom it belongs to.

From the March 24, 2005 testimony of Lisa Susan Roote Hemman, a senior identification technician in the forensic unit of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department:

Q. Could you explain that for us, please?

A. I was asked to do a visual inspection of the contents, and I used an alternate light source which goes into the UV wavelengths. And when you look — search for body fluids, they will fluoresce under UV light, and anything that seemed to fluoresce, it could be body fluids, but it could also be other things. My job was to find items that weren’t on the paper when they were published, they were placed there later. It could be anything that fluoresced. And I separated those items out for further testing. And when I did that, I repackaged them into another bag and I sent them to the Department of Justice Lab to find out what those fluids or deposits were.

Q. How did you mark on a specific item where you suspected there may be some kind of body fluid or other substance that was foreign to that magazine or picture?

A. I sent the entire item to be reinspected by the Department of Justice. I also put a yellow tab, a post-it note, on the page that I suspected, but I  also requested that the Department of Justice reevaluate the entire magazine or piece of paper. [2] 

Later in her testimony some more was explained about ALS and what it actually detects:

Okay. Now, the alternative light source that you used during that one-week period from January 20 to January 26th was for the purpose of — oh — was for the purpose of determining whether or not there was bodily fluids?

A. Or any trace evidence, hair, fibers.

Q. And an alternative light source, can you describe that briefly?

A. Yes. What –

Q. Let me stop you for a second. We’ve already had a little testimony. What color is it, and did you wear goggles, or was there a different color? What did you do?

A. Yes, it’s basically a light source that goes through numerous wavelengths, mainly in the UV, and I wore orange goggles which narrows the band down and helps you see things fluoresce, or absorb the light, turn dark. And so basically I just went page by page, wearing those orange goggles, and using the UV light and examining each piece of paper.

Q. All right. Is this destructive of the evidence to do that?

A. No. The CSS — the light source has dials on it, which dial each wavelength, and the CSS is the one that we use mainly for searching for body fluids, and that one is not, as far as I know, destructive to DNA evidence.

Q. Okay. It’s not destructive to the paper?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So when you do an alternative light source examination of that sort, you can then do other tests on the materials –

A. Yes.

Q. — freely thereafter, right?

A. It’s harmless to the evidence that we looked at. [2]

From the expert testimonies we learn even more that completely debunks this Internet folklore that it was Jackson’s semen that was found on those magazines. On the same day (March 24, 2005) a senior criminalist of the California Department of Justice at the Santa Barbara Regional Crime Laboratory,  Charlane Marie testified about the results of their analysis of the fluorescents that were sent to them by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office.

Q. Okay. And your job was to look at that with an alternative light source, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did I ask you this? On 766, that’s your handwriting on the notes around the pictures?

A. It is.

Q. All right. And when you looked at the alternative light source, looked at the items with the alternative light source, did you find any suspected DNA to sample and analyze?

A. Well, the light source is just a presumptive searching tool, and all it’s going to tell you is if something’s glowing. If something’s glowing, biologicals do glow, so that’s one area that you might want to test.

Q. Okay. Is that what you were looking for?

A. I was looking for biological material, yes.

Q. Bodily fluids, pretty much?

A. Correct.

Q. The question is, did you find any?

A. I did not.

Q. So as far as you could tell, there was no DNA to be tested from the materials you were sent?

A. Well, there’s no seminal material.

Q. There’s nothing you felt — just to make it clear, I’m not trying to trap you here, but there was nothing that you found and you said, “Ah-hah, we ought to send this off to Sacramento or have a DNA lab do a further analysis of this”; is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. You pretty much packaged it back up and sent it back to Santa Barbara?

A. I did, yes.

I don’t think it can be any clearer than that.

Sources:

[1] Janet Williams’ testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 19, 2005)
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Court-Transcripts.zip

[2] Lisa Susan Roote Hemman’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 24, 2005)
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Court-Transcripts.zip

[3] Charlane Marie’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 24, 2005)
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Court-Transcripts.zip

Comments are closed

Grooming or A Generous Heart?

This section is dedicated to articles, stories and comments about Michael Jackson’s interactions with various children, adults and families. While this at first glance has nothing to do with the allegations against him, we felt the need to include these stories, because Jackson’s accusers, the prosecution and the media have often turned innocent gestures and the general generosity of the star into a “grooming of young boys” story with the intent of sexually abusing them. As you will see Jackson was very giving and generous with everyone – children, adults, girls and boys alike – and what the prosecution attempted to portray as the “grooming of young boys” was not limited to his treatment of young boys at all, but he behaved like that with everyone he considered a friend or even complete strangers.

Laura Chaplin is the granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin.

LAURA CHAPLIN: REMEMBRANCE

“Michael Jackson came three times to the mansion, he was like a child” “I was about 12 years old when Michael Jackson came to the mansion. Subsequently, he called me almost every day to chat. He sent me incredible birthday gifts. Huge cartons. I went up on stage with him in Geneva. He was a great friend of the family. ” During his first visit, MJ had landed by helicopter in the garden of the domain. “I was pretty impressed,” said Laura. The King of Pop, too, but the big dogs. “We had nine dogs and he was afraid. We had to lock them up before it happens. “At the time of eating, seeing the big table, Jackson sat down with the children. “He was very shy. He was doing pirouettes in the garden. We played the PlayStation. He was a great kid. “Smile”, composed by my grandfather was one of his favorite tracks “

Source: http://www.lematin.ch/people/charlot-jusqu-doigts/story/24716250

Michael Jackson and his friendship with Taiwanese couple and their twins

A Taiwanese fan Mrs. Ma Qi Zhen not only met Michael with her family, but also she became a close friends of Michael for many years. Mrs Ma had always kept a low profile about their 17 years family friendship with Michael Jackson. It was until Michael’s sudden passing last June, did Mrs. Ma have spoken out for the first time about this in the media about her friendship with the King of Pop. She pays tribute on how kind, loving and approachable the King of Pop was. She shared her memories of an extraordinary friend and how she felt that Michael was misunderstood by many.

It was a fax message that leads to the friendship between Michael and the Ma Family. During the Dangerous Tour in Taiwan in Sept 1993, Mrs Ma and her husband had trouble of getting tickets for their nine month old twin daughters for the concert, as ticket will not be allowed to be sold to their 9 month old babies for safety concern. Ma wouldn’t settle for it, as it was going to be the last day of Michael’s concert in Taiwan. She decided to give it a try and send a fax message to the hotel that Michael was staying in. She directly address the fax message to ask him asking him to allow her twins to go to the concert. She didn’t really expect that Michael would see it, next thing she knew was that Michael did read it and responded to it. He immediately sent down VIP passes for the family to be able to come to the concert and to meet him personally in his hotel room after the concert.

When the family arrived at his Presidential Suite, Michael was already in his pajamas, ready to go to bed. They find the superstar very kind and approachable, Ma recalled that he was so fascinated by the twins, he wanted to know everything about bringing up babies. The twin babies were crawling around in his room, at one point, one of the twins grabbed his CD player and started to bite it, Michael immediately went to pick up the baby and softly he said to her “Don’t bite it, it’ll hurt you.” Ma recalled that Michael was not yet a parent during that time but was very protective of children.

When they said goodbye, Michael personally escorted them off to the elevator and promised to invite them to come and visit him when he returned to America in his home Neverland. Ma family never took his words seriously, but Michael meant it! During the 17 years friendship Michael had with the Ma Family, the family had been able to visit 6 times as guests at his Neverland home, and even travels with him to other parts of world. Every time they said goodbye, he would cuddle them with words like “I’ll always love you”. He would seemed just simply wanted to be loved. Michael adored the twins, when he returned to Taiwan for the History tour in 1996, he invited the twins for an appearance to ” Heal the world ” Song with him on stage. He even invited the family to follow History tour with him. The twins was also featured in “Heal the world” in Durban, South Africa and it was said to be his last concert ever.

Michael had confided to Mrs. Ma things like his iconic sequins glove, was first used to hide his skin problem vitiligo that first appeared on his hand, and the glove had surprisingly become his signature trademark. Michael even referred himself as Chinese, as according to Michael, his mother Katherine was of a quarter Chinese descent. Michael did often expressed his strong desire to perform in China.

According to the the Taiwanese concert organizer Mr. Yu, during both his Dangerous and History Tour in Taiwan in the 90’s, Michael asked for his help to perform in China, though Yu did his best, During that time China was not yet ready to open up to Western pop performers.

Ma had seen the very sincere side of Michael, pure and innocent, like a big kid, love surprises, magic, very compassionate, very trusting and very caring. She hoped that by sharing her story, the world would know the true nature of Michael. The world not only loose a musical genius but a beautiful soul.

Below is the video that apparently was sent by Michael to the Ma family after the History tour, featuring the Ma twins with Michael singing “Heal the World” in Kaohsiung, South Taiwan. Towards the end of the song, MJ made an effort to say “I love you” in Mandarin to the audience. This he had asked the twins to teach him before the performance. His interactions with the twins was just so sweet. Rest in peace, Michael, we’ll miss you.

kellie

Kellie Parker and Michael Jackson

Kellie Parker was the little girl in Michael Jackson’s 1988 movie Moonwalker. In a CineVegas Podcast with Vincent Paterson, after a Moonwalker screening in 2009 she said:

Kellie: “It’s hard… (losing composure, pauses) I’ll always feel that way. I’ll always be waiting for him.”

Steve Friess: “As I understand it you remained in contact with Michael up until very recently.”

Kellie: “Yeah. I remained very close with Michael for about ten years. Then after that I continued to stay in touch with him but not as regularly, every couple of years and then I did actually see him a couple of weeks before he passed away.”

Steve: “What was the occasion?”

Kellie: “I was working on a show he came to see, sort of randomly…”

Kellie: “I do know that in his life he would struggle with being so well known, that was sort of a constant struggle throughout his life. But I do have to say, I spent a lot of time with Michael alone on set, he and I had a lot of scenes together and he taught me so much. He was so dedicated. We would go through – before we even shot he and I would spend sometimes like half an hour together just improving, ’cause he was so committed to it.”

[…]

“Michael was magic, pure and simple. He was a man who believed in the goodness of mankind and embodied pure unconditional love for the world. I am so sad on so many levels. For the loss of an innovative genius and who was music and dance personified, for the loss of a man who loved the whole world and touched so many lives, but mostly, for me personally, the loss of a friend that I loved so dearly. Most people don’t know about how close I was to Michael for many years following ‘Moonwalker/Smooth Criminal’ because I was never one to exploit that, even to this day I rarely talk about it, for that was a friendship that I honored and respected as private. I feel compelled at this time though, to speak of my amazing friend, as a witness to his life, and the gentleness of his soul. He taught me so much, both as an actor and as a person, he continually inspired me to reach beyond my boundaries. He and I spent a great deal of time, one on one, while filming ‘Moonwalker.’ I remember that he told me once to never rush an emotion, that everything in life has a rhythm, and that it is the pauses and silences that speak the truth. He understood this better than anyone, he had a way of quietly inspiring everyone around him to be better than ever thought they could be. He helped so many, and inspired us all. Michael believed in Magic, he believed that we could change the world, and he had such unconditional love that when you were around him, you couldn’t help but believe it too. He is intertwined in all of who I am, I became a dancer because of him, I became an artist because he inspired me to dream, and a writer because he taught me the power of moving people through words and actions. I love you my friend, and I know you are in a better place, we were blessed to have you for as long as we did.”

Here is Kellie returning to Neverland after Michael Jackson’s death:

Nicole Richie in November 2003:

“Nicole, in particular, supported Jackson against the charges of improper sexual behavior with children. To that end, she offered tales of her own childhood romps at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, during which she often slept in Jackson’s bedroom. ““You know, a group of us would all sleep in the same room,” she said. “It was like, absolutely nothing more than just…an adult kind of wanting to be a kid again. Just, you know, enjoying the company of children. I grew up with him. I have spent many evenings there and many days there.” Noting that she could “only speak for myself,” she still added “that absolutely nothing went on.” Nicole also said that she wouldn’t have held her tongue had Jackson tried anything with her. “I’m not a quiet person,” she said. “If there was something going on, I’d be like ‘who are you?’… and I’d tell my parents. But my parents would never put me in hands that they thought were dangerous. I never had any complaints, and you know, I love him.”

Source: Reality TV World

The Cascio family were very close to Jackson since the 1980s until the singer’s death. In his 2011 book entitled My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man Frank Cascio defended Jackson against the allegations and attested to the fact that the media often misrepresented the issue of Jackson “sharing bed with children”, which was not helped by the fact that Jackson often was misunderstood, sometimes genuinely, sometimes deliberately when he spoke about this issue in interviews. For details about that please this article.

The family also appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s TV program in 2010 talking about their relationship with the star.

“Michael called me, after a surgery I had & invited me to the set of his video for “The Way You Make Me Feel”. Here’s what stood out about the day, the biggest super-star in the world made me feel like the super-star. In the middle of all his hectic-ness he would come see me, take pics with me & make sure I was good between takes!! At 5 yrs old I sat & watched him shoot, take after take in this warehouse in San Pedro CA. He introduced me to everyone, his sister Latoya was there, his co-star, that beautiful girl he was SO shy to kiss Tatianna. Even at that young age I was very aware of how gracious & kind he was with EVERYONE on set. Looking back now I remember he was sooooo excited that all of the extras were real ex bloods, crips, gang members from LA. I remember him being so excited about giving them … a chance to shine & a new opportunity.

We sat in his trailer, I remember telling him I wanted to be a singer when I grew up & gave him pics of me from my dance recital. I remember eating with him & him being the very first vegetarian I had ever met! I was like u don’t eat meat??? I was so confused!! Lol. Man writing this, thinking about this day & all the rest of the times I spent with him makes me smile!! As a lil girl I never really grasped how famous he was, honestly I think that’s why he loved hanging out with me! To me & all the other kids, he was just a fun, crazy, silly guy, who sang our most favorite songs. I love him for being the most honest, pure heart I have ever known for showing me video shoots, recording studios, & concerts, up close and personal, making my dream seem possible. I was there in it, seeing it happen, he brought me into a world I would have never known existed without him. A lil girl from Van Nuys CA. I can’t even begin to count the ways he changed my life. He helped create my dream. Records like Homegirlz & Sadgirl I know he would be proud of, he was always ALWAYS about giving back!! I miss him everyday & can’t believe he is gone.”

Source: Lalaromero.com

Romero talking about Jackson:

From the book Private Conversations in Neverland with Michael Jackson written by one of Jackson’s friends Dr. William B. Van Valin II:

“DAVID ROTHENBERG

One day Michael phoned and said, “I want to know if you’d like to bring your family up for dinner. I have a friend here that I’d like you all to meet.” I always knew when he said that sort of thing that it was bound to be something interesting and that I would be glad I’d done it afterward. I told him that we’d be happy to come. He said, “First I need to ask you something. Do you think your children would be upset by meeting someone who has some deformities from an accident?” I told him “Michael I can assure you, my children will treat this person as if they had no deformities. I’ve taught them from a very early age that you never say anything to anyone that would hurt them. Especially about things they can’t help. But I will tell them about this before we get there.” Michael said “Good. Then I’d like you to come out for dinner to meet David Rothenberg.”

By this time, having been to the Ranch so frequently, we were usually waved on through rather than stopping to sign in. This visit was no exception and upon arrival we parked out in front of the house. Although I had told Michael many times that he didn’t need to, he always had the maids and cooks lined up outside the front door to greet us as we entered the house. Michael insisted that this was protocol and they were always to follow it. I told him “Really, I already know everyone by name since I’m out here so often. I feel kind of guilty for making them drop what they’re doing and stand out here and greet us.” Michael replied, “You mustn’t feel bad. It’s one of the things that I pay them to do.”

Anyway, going to the house was always a treat. It was a lovely assault on all senses. Through the front door we turned to the left through the dining room. Two steps down the opposite end was a large fireplace that faced a bar making up the south side of the kitchen. On this night, Michael’s guest was sitting to the right of the fireplace. Michael looked at us and said, “You guys, this is David Rothenberg” and he introduced us one by one. Greetings went around my family. The kids ran off to do their own thing around the house leaving Criss, Michael, and me to talk with David.

I imagine there are pictures out there of David for those who want to see him but suffice it to say he had been ravaged by flames at some point in his life. What I remember clearly now was that there was a long tuft of hair on the back of his head and there was a young girl, apparently a cousin of Michael’s, who was meticulously braiding the tuft while David told us about his day at the Ranch. When we all sat down to dinner, Michael turned to him and asked, “So, David did you paint today?” David replied, “Yes, I did. I think I did some of my best work ever.” Michael said, “Good. I need you out there painting every day that you’re here. I want you to express yourself.” David assured him he was. Later in the evening Michael and I went out by the lake where he had an easel and paints set up and he showed me some of David’s paintings. They consisted of stick figures and V’s for birds. Michael told me, “I don’t care if he doesn’t become a great painter. I just think it’s important for him to do this while he’s here. I always want to keep him occupied.” I asked Michael, “So, how did you and David meet?” Michael said, “Well, when he was quite young, his father spread gasoline on him and set him on fire. The reasons don’t matter. And actually there are none. Anyway, he ended up living through it and I’ve kind of watched him through the years. Not long ago, I read in the paper an article saying that David Rothenberg tried to commit suicide. He was despondent over not being able to get a job. So I sent for him. One of my drivers went and got him and brought him back to the Ranch. When he got here, I told him that I had heard what had happened. David told me that it was true and he was just depressed ‘because who would hire someone that looks like me?’ I looked at him and said, ‘I would. I want you to work for me. Would you do that? ’ David said, ‘Yes. I would like that.’ So I put him to work.” I asked Michael, “Did you really have a job for him?” He said, “Not really. I kind of made one up.” I asked, “What was it? What did you have him do?” He said, “I give him letters or packages and I have him take them to other cities telling him that it’s important that they be mailed there. So for example, I send him to Los Angeles or San Diego and tell him to mail something when he gets there. I gave him a car to take him everywhere he wants to go and he has a place to call home. He’d lost his sense of purpose and I wanted him to know he had one.”

I never saw David again after that and I never asked Michael what happened to him. I now know, from old news stories, that when David was six back in 1983 his father, Charles, who was in a custody fight with David’s mom, Marie, set him on fire and burned him over 90% of his body. There’s a video on YouTube in which David, who changed his name to Dave Dave (which to me sounds like a name Michael would’ve given him), told Larry King just before Michael’s burial in 2009 about Michael’s kindness to him – which Dave said began when he was just seven years old and which his mother had always kept a secret. Dave told King that Michael opened Neverland to him and provided emotional support and was like a father he never had.”

article

 

Doug Lewis worked on the set of Michael and Janet Jackson’s 1995 video “Scream” when he suffered an accident. The story in his own words:

“Once shooting began, my role was the ‘on-set dresser’, basically the ‘art department representative’ who remains on set at all times as the ‘face’ of the art department. By the very nature of the position, the on-set dresser has close interaction with the talent while on the set.

[…]

Finally, we get down to business. Michael makes his entrance and is met by Mark who explains the shot. The first footage we shoot with Michael is of him dancing on one of the many white floors seen throughout the video. Michael finds his position, about six feet from camera, does a couple of takes, then mentions how the floor (white vinyl linoleum) was feeling slick. I move in with my tools, a fine grade steel wool, rag and a spray bottle with the ‘special sauce’ and scruff up the floor a bit with the wool then step back. Mark comes out from behind the camera, looks at my handiwork then calls out for Tom before asking me if we lost the ‘gloss’. I say no, give it a quick spray with the special sauce and it dries to a sparkle. When I get up from my kneeling position Michael is smiling at me and says, “I remember you from the tour rehearsal”. I say, “That’s right”, and he asks me how my kids are doing, I say, “great, amazing.” And then everything is back to normal, Michal does his bit and we’re off to a good start.

As predicted, crew call switched from 7am to 4pm, and we worked throughout each night until 4-6am. In the final hours of the last night of shooting, we had moved to the ‘zen’ set. This was it, last day, last set, last series of shots. The art department had prepped the set with final touches before Michael was brought in to take his place on the zen podium in the center of the set. Michael surveyed the scene and commented on how beautiful the set looked. He was very relaxed and it was obvious he enjoyed sitting in the middle of this temporary temple. When Mark called out for a piece of the ceiling to be trimmed, I grabbed a 12-step (ladder), scrambled to the top and began sawing. In an unfortunate moment the portable saw kicked back and amputated a third of my left ring finger. Without word, I reached in my back pocket for my rag, wrapped my finger with it and stepped down off the ladder and exited the set. I passed Tom on the way out and showed him what happened. Tom escorted me to the edge of the stage and I laid down on the concrete. It wasn’t long before an entire film crew of towering bodies was in a half circle looking down at me. Union guys chewing gum. 3am. Right?

Suddenly the crowd parts and Michael appears and stands there for a moment, leaning over me, looking down. He looks at my left hand held in the air then he looks at me. Then just like that he is on his knees by my right side and he picks up my right hand and holds it in his. He looks me straight in the eye and tells me how sorry he was, he kept repeating how sorry he was, and then he had tears in his eyes and he held my hand until the ambulance came and took me away.

That next week, recovering at home, the gifts began arriving from Michael and Janet, tasteful and cool things like great soaps, a bathrobe, incense, a card. Anyway, that’s my story. Michael Jackson held my hand, too. Michael, if you read this, thanks for caring.

Source: https://veniceartsclub.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/michael-jackson-held-my-hand-too/

To be continued…

Comments are closed

Did Michael Jackson pay “hush-money” to a family in Brazil in 2003?

No. This is yet another “hush-money” story that has no factual evidence. The story originates from Jackson’s former associate Marc Schaffel. Schaffel formerly worked as an advisor for the star but in 2004 after he stopped working for Jackson he sued him claiming Jackson owed him $1.6 million, then later $3.8 million, for various endeavors he worked on for the pop star. Jackson counter-sued him claiming that Schaffel owed him money too. At the end Schaffel was awarded some of his demands and Jackson too was awarded some of his.

The relevant thing for our purpose is that during the civil trial of that case in an attempt to get the case settled, Schaffel, out of the blue, made a claim of $300,000 that he never claimed before. Then he made his rounds in the media – and especially appeared to feed articles written by Roger Friedman for Fox News – in which he suggested or downright claimed that this was some sort of secret “hush money” pay-off in November 2003 on the behalf of Jackson for a family (supposedly a certain David and Ruby Martinez) in Brazil who “felt their child was abused by the pop star” [1].

In another article written by Friedman a couple of days later the story got more confusing. Now Friedman claimed that Jackson wanted to adopt 3-4-year-old children from Brazil, a boy and a girl, and “the $300,000 secret payment that I told you about last week was going to be used for this adoption. When that didn’t work out, the money (already in Brazil) was subsequently used to buy the continued silence of a family Jackson had quietly paid off years earlier when they claimed he’d had inappropriate relations with their son”[2].

In each case the articles end with what seem like thinly vieled attempts at blackmailing the star into a settlement or else Schaffel would make more allegations which could potentially harm Jackson’s reputation:

“The Schaffel case continues Thursday in Santa Monica, although I cannot understand why Jackson doesn’t borrow the money and settle out of court. More testimony in this direction, no matter how oblique, cannot be good for him.” [1]

“There’s more to this story, and it only gets worse. The reason all this is coming out, of course, is because the Schaffel v. Jackson trial continues without a settlement. The reason for this can be only one of two things: Jackson is either getting the worst advice ever from lawyers, who are also billing him at top dollar, or he simply doesn’t have the cash on hand to settle the case.
My guess is it’s both, and before this trial is over, Michael Jackson’s reputation will be even more thoroughly damaged than it was last year.” [2]

Despite of these threats Jackson refused to settle the case.

We learn from an Associated Press report that forensic accountant, Jan Goren testified that he had no reason to believe this allaged payment ever took place.

“Jan Goren, who showed jurors how he traced millions of dollars through the various bank accounts of F. Marc Schaffel, also said he found no substantiation for a $300,000 payment Schaffel claimed he provided to a mysterious “Mr. X” in South America on Jackson’s behalf.” [3]

[…]

On the purported delivering of $300,000 to “Mr. X” in South America, Goren testified that Schaffel never claimed the amount until this year and “there is no check, no moneys leaving a bank … no bank statements, no ledgers.”

“I have nothing that corroborates it from a documentary point of view,” he said.

He noted that the entry was coded “EFT,” which refers to an electronic fund transfer to another account. But he said the amount was never transferred to or from any account.

“My conclusion on this is it is not a valid claim,” Goren said.” [3]

During Goren’s cross examination Schaffel’s lawyer, Howard King tried to prove this claim by showing a receipt of a withdrawal of $258,000 from a Hungarian bank. However, the date of the withdrawal was three years before Schaffel claimed this supposed pay-off took place – at the time Schaffel did not even work for Jackson yet. The sum did not match, the place did not match and the date was off by three years.

“On the issue of the $300,000, King asked if Goren had seen a receipt from a Hungarian bank.

“No, you can show me,” said Goren.

But it wasn’t until redirect examination by Mundell that the receipt was displayed in court. It showed a withdrawal of $258,000 from a Hungarian bank three years before Schaffel claims he was dispatched to South America on a mission for Jackson.

“Of course this does not influence my opinion,” Goren said. “This transaction took place three years before. So what? How does it end up in South America? I don’t see the connection at all.” [3]

After the civil case between them ended Schaffel never made this claim again. Schaffel was one of the main sources for Randall Sullivan’s 2012 book entitled Untouchable – The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson and in that book he talks about this civil trial, but he totally “forgets” to mention this particular action by him during that trial. In the book Schaffel never claims to have any knowledge about Jackson being a child molester or paying off anyone. Nor did Schaffel ever mention this allegation before this civil case. He never went to authortities during the 2003-05 investigation and criminal trial against Jackson to report any knowledge about alleged pay-offs.

He only made this claim during the civil trial in 2006 while he was trying to make Jackson settle the case by threatening him with bad publicity and, as we have seen, evidence presented at that trial did not support this claim.

Sources:

[1] Roger Friedman – Jacko’s Big Secret: $300,000 Payoff to Another Family? (FoxNews.com, July 6, 2006)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/06/jacko-big-secret-300000-payoff-to-another-family/

[2] Roger Friedman – Michael Jackson Tried to Adopt Brazilian Babies (FoxNews.com, July 10, 2006)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/10/michael-jackson-tried-to-adopt-brazilian-babies/

[3] Linda Deutsch – Accountant Disputes Claims Against Jackson (Associated Press, 13th July 2006)
Accountant Disputes Claims Against Jackson

Comments are closed

The Persistent but Untrue Media Myth of Michael Jackson Paying Off Dozens of Families

Despite of not any evidence of it ever, some portion of the media cannot let go a myth about Michael Jackson supposedly secretly paying off dozens of families not to go public or to authorities with allegations of sexual abuse of their children by the star.

Stacy Brown, the tabloid journalist from whom the story originated

Stacy Brown, the tabloid journalist from whom the story originated

We already addressed this claim in connection with an article written by the Sunday People in June 2013 and showed there why that claim is not true, but the myth of these secret pay-offs seems to be too persistent and some of the media too lazy to fact-check the veracity of these claims before they publish articles about it based on simple “copy-and-paste” journalism. In early April of 2015 there was another article, this time written by Stacy Brown, that spread through the mainstream media once AGAIN without anyone ever bothering to fact-check it before they re-publish it. (Stacy Brown is a freelance tabloid journalist who used to be a Jackson family hanger-on until the early-mid 2000s. He was NOT in Michael Jackson’s inner circle, he only saw the singer from the distance a couple of times, he was associated more with Jackson’s eldest sister Rebbie Jackson and her husband Nathaniel Brown. Initially he had a positive attitude towards the family and Michael Jackson, but it all changed when it became clear that Michael Jackson did not want to associate with him. Since then he made it his profession to regularly write slanderous articles about the singer, his family and even his children.) This time the claim was that over the years Michael Jackson paid $200 million “hush money” to families of 20 of his supposed victims to not to come forward with allegations of child sexual abuse against him.

Fact is, however, that there is not any evidence in support of this claim. Some of the media rehashing this claim over and over again will not make it true, although of course it can do a lot to make people believe it, simply based on the old communications trick of repeating a lie enough for it to become people’s “truth”.

In this article I am going to provide some bullet points about this issue:

  • Michael Jackson has been investigated by authorities for over 10 years and he was on a criminal trial in 2005. No evidence of secret pay-offs to 20 or 24 families (or whatever the number is in any given tabloid article) was ever even offered by the prosecution (or the FBI or by anyone). It was not a case of such evidence being “excluded” from court. Such evidence simply was not even offered. This prosecution threw everything but the kitchen sink at Jackson in 2005 so it is not realistic to think that they would leave out such an important evidence if it existed. In actuality, the only evidence of pay-offs which came out at the trial was the money the prosecution’s many witnesses received from the tabloid media for their allegations! It is ironic that some of the same media who paid out fortunes to people for making up allegations about Michael Jackson over the course of two decades, continue to accuse the singer of secret pay-offs with no evidence whatsoever. (To read more about the media’s role in the allegations against Jackson please read this article.)
  • None of Michael Jackson’s actual accusers claimed to have been offered any “hush money”. The article claims that the family of Jackson’s posthumus accuser, James Safechuck received $1 million as hush money. It appears that the author of the article (and all those who uncritically rehashed it) did not even bother to check out the actual allegations of these accusers, which are not consistent with the claims in the article. Safechuck’s claim is that his parents never knew about his alleged abuse until his recent “revelation” of it. There is no allegation made about the parents receiving any hush money from Jackson to stay silent about alleged abuse. Wade Robson does not allege either that his parents received any hush money from Jackson. [We have a lot to say about Robson and Safechuck’s allegations, but on this website we are only going to address these claims in detail after the case leaves the court system.]
  • Regarding Robson’s allegations. Among other things he accuses Jackson’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures of      “facilitating” his alleged abuse. There are many problems with this claim, but for the purpose of this article there is one that is important: for a company to be responsible for alleged sexual abuse by one of its employees, agents, representatives, the law requires that the company knew or had a reason to know about the alleged abuse or about previous criminal activities of the accused person and that the company failed to apply reasonable safeguards to prevent abuse. The Judge already sustained a demurrer by Jackson’s Estate stating that Robson failed to claim a viable cause of action about how Jackson’s companies were supposed to be responsible for alleged abuse, but the Judge allowed Robson to amend his complaint in order to try to claim a viable cause of action. As of our current information of the case, Robson filed his amended complaint, but yet again it does not seem to include much more than his first complaint. If there was evidence of “hush money” being paid out to other people we would probably see references to it in this complaint, because it would strengthen Robson’s argument about why and how Jackson’s companies “had a reason to know”. But from what we are able to see so far there is not any such claim from Robson in any of his papers, even though his lawyer was pretty hopeful about this possibility of alleged “hush money” victims being discovered when the Sunday People published its article in 2013. Then Maryann Marzano was quoted saying:

“Choreographer Robson’s litigation counsel Maryann R. Marzano of Gradstein & Marzano said: ‘These revelations confirm what we’ve been saying: that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and Wade Robson was one of his victims.

‘To continue to deny this, defies both common sense and common decency.’

A source close to Wade added: ‘The information in these files could provide many leads both for witnesses in the case and background information on deals we may never have heard of before.

‘Wade wants his lawyers to go through the papers page by page.’” [1]

However, almost two years later none of these alleged “hush money” allegations have found their way into any of their court papers, which suggests that just like prosecutors and the FBI before, they have not found anything either. For anyone following the actual court proceedings in the Robson/Safechuck matter it is clear that there is no evidence provided about such alleged hush money payments. Not surprisingly, because this is nothing but a media myth.

  • Sometimes Michael Jackson’s settling a civil lawsuit with  Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia’s (to learn more about those settlements please click on their names) families in 1994 is characterized as “hush money” by the media, but we are talking about different things here. Those were settlements well after those allegations went public and after authorities already were notified about them. “Hush money” is what is paid for a family not to go public or to authorities with allegations of sex abuse. There is no evidence of Michael Jackson ever paying such money to anyone.
    The settlements with Chandler and Francia WERE mentioned in court in 2005, during the testimonies of Jordan’s mother June Chandler and Jason Francia. That is not new information and not something that the trial jury in 2005 did not hear about.
    In actuality, the way Jackson handled the Chandler situation makes it very unlikely that he ever paid hush money to anyone, which leads us to our next point.
  • The Chandler family – Jackson’s first accusers in 1993 – wanted nothing more than hush money. This is admitted in a book entitled All That Glitters, published in 2004 by Jordan Chandler’s uncle Ray Chandler. That book goes into a lengthy discussion of the so called “negotiations” – ie. the Chandlers’ monetary demands from Jackson in order to not go public and to authorities with their allegations of sexual abuse of Jordan by the singer. (For a detailed discussion of those monetary demands please see this article.) Jackson however refused to pay them off. Quotes from that book:

“Fields and Pellicano [Jackson’s lawyer and his private investigator] already knew Evan [Chandler – the boy’s father] was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you’ve got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money’s no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn’t work, you can always come out swingin’ anyway.” [2; page 126]

“On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with [the Chandlers’ lawyer] Barry Rothman, Anthony Pellicano had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael’s name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?” [2; page 138]

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”[2; page 128]

In actuality, according to the book at one point Evan Chandler offered to go away for $1 million. Many people fail to realize had Jackson wanted to “hush” his accuser he could have done so before the allegations went public and before the authorities were involved. In fact, the accusing side’s goal was to get a pay-off from the very beginning. It is clear that the reason they turned to the public and the authorities with their allegations was because they did NOT get the pay-off they desired. If paying off people was such a routine for Michael Jackson why did not he pay off the Chandlers who were so eager to be paid off?

  • Such huge amount of pay-outs would have their traces somewhere in financial records – money moving from and to bank accounts, ledgers, accounting etc. Such huge amount of money cannot just appear or disappear without any trace and any explanation and any effect on either the one who pays it or those who receive it. The prosecution in 2005 was given several search warrants against Jackson – including search warrants on his bank accounts. They were given full authority to look into Jackson’s finances. However, there is nothing from a financial point of view supporting the idea of such pay-outs.

Based on the above points it is safe to say Jackson has never paid hush money to anyone in exchange for silence about alleged sexual abuse of their children. There was never any evidence of such payments and no one has ever claimed that he or his parents ever received any such payments. Prosecutors, the FBI and opposing lawyers could not find anything either after all these years. The court documents of the 2005 trial and the period leading up to it are freely available online (http://sbscpublicaccess.org/) and there is nothing in them about $200 million being paid out by Jackson to 20 alleged victims. The prosecution never offered any such evidence, so it was not a case of such evidence being “excluded” – such evidence simply did not exist.

The only realm this claim is stubbornly rehashed over and over again is some portion of the media which fail to do due diligence before they rehash potentially slanderous stories about someone who is not here to defend himself.

UPDATE: Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson said this to Entertainment Tonight regarding these claims:

“We are aware of recent false ‘reports’ regarding Michael Jackson having, among other things, paid over $200 million to 20 ‘victims,'” Weitzman told ET in a statement on Monday. “There is not a shred of evidence to support these ludicrous ‘reports.’ It is unfortunate that, even in death, Michael cannot be free of these types of allegations, but we are confident that the truth will prevail in the end, just as it did in 2005 when a jury fully exonerated him.” [3] 

Sources:

[1] James Desborough – Michael Jackson ‘victim’ Wade Robson claims leaked FBI files proves he told the truth about child molestation [Daily Mail, July 2, 2013]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2353244/Michael-Jackson-victim-Wade-Robson-claims-leaked-FBI-files-proves-told-truth-child-molestation.html#ixzz2XrYdtDCf

[2] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)

[3] Raphael Chestang – Michael Jackson Accused of Paying Millions in Hush Money to Alleged Molestation Victims (ET Online, April 6, 2015)

http://www.etonline.com/news/162324_michael_jackson_accused_of_paying_millions_hush_money_to_alleged_molestation_victims/

Comments are closed

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This section contains answers to Frequently Asked Questions or questions and answers which are not directly within the scope of either the 1993 (Chandler) allegations part or the 2005 (Arvizo) allegations part, but are generally related to these allegations.

  • Is it true that Jordan Chandler publicly confessed after Michael Jackson’s death that Jackson did not molest him?

No, it is not true. The rumor that after the singer’s death Jordan Chandler publicly confessed that he was not molested by Jackson was an Internet hoax. Privately, allegedly, he confessed to some people that his allegations against Jackson were not true, but it was never confirmed by him publicly and he has never spoken about the case publicly.

Details

  • Why did Jackson settle with his first accuser out of court if he was innocent?

The Settlement that Jackson signed with his first accuser in January 1994 is interpreted by some people as a sign of guilt in itself. However, it is a more complicated issue than that. You can read about the Settlement and its reasons in detail in this article.

Jackson also signed a Settlement with Jason Francia in 1994. Again, this in itself does not mean that Francia’s allegations were true, as indeed Jason Francia was not found credible when he testified at Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial. You can read about his allegations, how they emerged and his 2005 testimony in this article.

  • Has there ever been any child pornography found in Michael Jackson’s possession?

No. The possession of child pornography is illegal and a crime in itself. Despite extensive searches on his homes both in the 1993 and the 2005 case, nothing illegal has ever been found in Jackson’s possession and he was never charged with the possession of anything illegal.

Details

A full survey of the books, magazines, DVDs and Internet material found in Jackson’s home

  • I read the FBI has evidence that Michael Jackson had paid off dozens of young boys to silence them after he had sexually abused them. Is that true?

No, it is not true. It was a British tabloid’s claim in 2013 and it is demonstrably false. Details in this article.

  • What about Jackson’s sharing his bedroom with unrelated children?

This issue has often been misrepresented by the media. The picture they paint of Jackson is of a predator who lured children into his bedroom while keeping away their parents. In reality, Jackson’s two-story bedroom was a gathering place for families and friends, and the parents and families of the children were allowed to stay there, as well as the children.

Details

  • Did Jackson only befriend young boys?

No. A large portion of the media and the prosecution tried to portray Jackson as someone who was obsessed with young boys. In reality, Jackson almost always befriended families and not just any children, and the young people around him were of both genders.

Details

Comments are closed

Did the FBI have evidence that Michael Jackson paid off dozens of young boys to silence them after he sexually abused them?

No, they did not. The claim that they did comes from a British tabloid and it is not true.

On June 30, 2013 British tabloid Sunday People (the Sunday edition of The Mirror) published an “exclusive” article in which they claimed that they had insight into “secret FBI files” which “reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million (about $35 million) buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years” [1].

They claim the files were in the possession of a private investigator Anthony Pellicano who worked for Jackson in 1993. When Pellicano was arrested for illegal wiretapping in 2002, the FBI confiscated these documents, the article claims. That is their claim to these documents being “FBI files”.

In the article they talk to a private investigator who claims that he worked with Pellicano in 1993 on the Jackson case. The unnamed man is claimed to have kept copies of the documents that he now presented to the Sunday People – so the narrative of the story.

The article claims Pellicano was hired by Jackson to pay-off other “victims” when the singer was accused of child molestation by Jordan Chandler in 1993.  The sloppy tabloid article manages to contradicts itself on how many boys it claims were allegedly paid-off: in some parts of the article (including the title) they claim 24 boys, in another part they claim 17 boys and in yet another part of the article their source talks about three.

Despite the contradictions, the sloppiness of the article and the lack of supporting evidence, the “news” spread like wildfire. Apparently the term “FBI files” were enough to convince people, including other journalists who did not bother to check out the veracity of the story, that the tabloid’s claims were true.  In no time many other publications and websites ran the story, stating it as a fact that “the FBI revealed thousands of pages of their secret files which prove Jackson was a serial molester and paid-off dozens of young boys”. The claim even crossed-over to mainstream, non-tabloid media. No one in the media who published the story as a fact ever asked the logical question: if it was true how come that this evidence was never presented to Court at Jackson’s 2005 trial? And why should we take the words of an unreliable tabloid for it without any evidence?

When we review the documents those were attached to the Sunday People article as “evidence” we see they do not prove what is alleged in the article, nor do they represent an official stance by the FBI. Evidence of abuse and pay-offs, let alone the FBI verifying anything, is nowhere to be found in them. For those who are familiar with the details of the allegations against Jackson it is easy to spot what these documents really are – and they are not what the tabloid claims them to be. Let’s see them one by one.

Document 1

1

Apparently this is a fax sent to Pellicano on July 26, 1993. The name of the sender is blacked out. The sender claims that a source (which is unnamed) told him or her that Jackson “has paid off child victim’s parents dating back to the summer of 1992”. Then the sender elaborates on this supposed $600,000 pay-off by quoting what is alleged to be the settlement agreement. The actual agreement is not presented. Instead we are just supposed to take the words of this person for it, of whom we do not even know who he or she is as the sender’s name is blacked out.

Fortunately we have another source for this story, which source, unlike the Sunday People, also provided a context for these claims, as well as the names which are blacked out in the document.

During Michael Jackson’s trial in 2005 journalist Roger Friedman, who worked for Fox News at the time,  received audio tapes from a private investigator and tabloid broker, Paul Barresi. These were recordings of a tabloid journalist (National Enquirer, Globe) Jim Mitteager, who had a habit of secretly taping his conversations. When he died his wife gave the tapes to Barresi. These tapes, among others, included some conversations about Jackson. One of those conversations sheds light on the  above mentioned document as Friedman wrote about this story extensively in 2005:

“Mitteager, at least in the case of Jackson, relied heavily on a sketchy stringer named Taylea Shea. Her veracity consequently became integral to a lot of tabloid reporting at the time.
Shea, who seems to have gone by a number of aliases and had a long list of addresses and phone numbers, could not be contacted for this story, despite many tries.
Neighbors at the Los Angeles address at which she lived the longest do not remember her fondly. They recall a hustler and con woman who was always on the take.
“She should be in jail, if she hasn’t been already,” one former friend and neighbor said.
On one tape, Shea reads what sounds convincingly like a legal document drawn up between Jackson and a 12-year-old boy named Brandon P. Richmond, who is represented by his mother, Eva Richmond.
Brandon, according to the document, received $600,000 from Jackson. He and Jackson would no longer have any contact with each other.
Shea read the document, which is dated July 1992, to Mitteager the following year.
This would have been a blockbuster, if true, because it would make Brandon, not the differently-named boy who settled with Jackson in 1993, the first of Jackson’s accusers.
Shea also says on the tape that the legal document came from the offices of famed Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields, Jackson’s attorney at the time.
No reason is given why Jackson and Brandon Richmond should be separated. The implication, however, is clear.” [2]

So we learn from Friedman that the original source of this story was a “sketchy stringer”, a woman who is recalled by her neighbors as a hustler and a con woman. We also learn that no one actually saw this alleged agreement, Shea only “read it” to Mitteager. (It is possible that it was Mitteager who sent this fax to Pellicano about his conversation with Shea.) Shea is the only person who claimed to have seen the alleged agreement. Moreover, there was never a Brandon P. Richmond around Jackson. The boy and his mother seem to be completely fictional. As well as this “Michael Jackson Organization” on the other side of this supposed agreement, as Jackson never had a company or organization named Michael Jackson Organization.

Because neither tabloids, nor authorities found evidence that a Brandon P. Richmond ever existed in Jackson’s life, Friedman suggested that the boy in question might be Brandon Adams, a boy who played in Jackson’s 1988 movie, Moonwalker. Besides sharing the same first name, Adams, was an actor and a dancer just like the fictional Brandon P. Richmond. However Friedman contacted Adams and his family in 2005 and they denied they had ever been paid off by Jackson. Nor does the name of Brandon Adams’ mother have any similarity to the mother’s name in Shea’s story. Friedman wrote in 2005:

“The Globe published the story without using names. Over time, it was assumed that Brandon P. Richmond was in fact Brandon Adams, a boy who had appeared in Jackson’s “Moonwalker” video.
Discussions on the tapes indicate that the tabloids also believed the two Brandons were one and the same. But there’s a problem with Shea’s story: Nothing adds up.
For one thing, a source close to Fields says the document uses language uncommon to their usual agreements.
Then there’s the actual family.
According to the Adamses, whom I met in January, they don’t know an Eva Richmond.
Brandon Adams’ mother is named Marquita Woods. And Brandon’s grandmother assures me she knows nothing of a $600,000 payment. The family has lived in a modest home in Baldwin Hills, Calif., for 30 years.
Brandon Adams, who is now 25, is a struggling actor. He appeared in “D2: The Mighty Ducks” and the indie film “MacArthur Park,” and is currently working on building a music career.
“I wish I had $600,000,” he said. “I’m broke.”
The Adamses pointed out that Brandon never visited Neverland, just the Jackson family home in Encino.
For a short time they were friendly not only with the Jacksons, but with Sean Lennon and his mother Yoko Ono, who were also part of “Moonwalker.” But the relationship seems to have ended well before Taylea Shea’s big scoop.” [2]

Brandon Adams was again contacted and asked about it on his Twitter when the Sunday People article came out in 2013. Here is what he said:

Question: “Hey, there’s a British tabloid today claiming again that MJ paid you off in 1992, can you deny it once again?”

Brandon Q Adams: “smh… Lol.. Not me!”
“they luv 2 tell lies about people… I guess it just comes with the territory #MJ #Greatness” [3]

Additionally the text of this alleged agreement is far too sloppy to be an agreement drawn up by professional top lawyers.

Friedman concluded that Shea likely made up the story: “Was Shea simply lying to Mitteager to collect a big fee? It would seem so.”  [2] The prosecution in the Jackson case never brought up this story in Court or elsewhere either.

At the end of the the document the writer says: “In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims” [1] and then gives a list of names. No source is given as to who alleges that and based on what. If this is supposed to be the Sunday People’s “evidence” of Jackson paying off dozens of boys then it’s about as convincing as their fictional Brandon. All of this is according to only one questionable source – a “sketchy stringer” who was called a hustler and a con woman by her neighbors – allegedly informing Pellicano about rumors, not an established fact, and it is definitely not information verified by the FBI.

In actuality, anyone who wants to give credit to the claim that the FBI had evidence that Jackson paid-off dozens of boys, must ask the question: why then that evidence was never introduced to Court at Jackson’s 2005 trial? The FBI cooperated with the prosecution during the trial, but no such evidence ever emerged.

Document  2

2

This is apparently a note written by someone to Anthony Pellicano. The sender’s name is blacked out here as well. On this document there is no date given, but from the text we can derive it was probably in March, 1994.

“Detectives [blacked out] escorted [blacked out] yesterday, March 2nd, to [blacked out] house.”

This part of the text, as well as the full first half of the document, is about Blanca Francia. She was the maid who received $20,000 from Hard Copy for an interview in 1993 in which she claimed she witnessed Jackson be inappropriate with boys and that possibly her own son was molested by the singer. She and her son were prosecution witnesses at Jackson’s 2005 trial, so their allegations are no new revelations either. You can read about Jason Francia’s allegations in detail in this article. We will address Blanca Francia in detail later on this website.

On January 26, 1995 British tabloid Today reported that “it had been discovered that Blanca Francia had used a National Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, as her translator when she was interviewed by police in 1993/4 as part of the criminal investigation of Jackson”.  [4] That story was based on Mitteager’s tapes:

“Paul Barresi, tabloid broker and investigator – after listening to a series of illicitly taped conversations recorded by reporter Jim Mitteager (now deceased) and left to Barresi when Mitteager died – discovered that an Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas, had helped to transcribe Francia’s interview statements with the police in 1993. Back then, the Enquirer, were actively offering substantial incentives to anyone with a ‘molestation’ story to sell on Jackson – all sanctioned by the Enquirer’s then editor, David Perel.”

and

“On April 4, 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso, then working at the Daily News, reported in a piece about the upcoming ‘prior acts’ testimonies in Jackson’s 2005 trial, that the ‘Mitteager Tapes’ included sessions with then Enquirer editor – David Perel, telling Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: ‘the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.’ [4]

Caruso talked to detective Russ Birchim, who interviewed Francia in 1993-94.

“Caruso reported that Birchim told her, “ Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did meet with her in Los Angeles.” Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim refused to elaborate.” [4]

All this seems to corroborate that the above document is some kind of note about what is on Mitteager’s tapes and can be traced back to Paul Barresi – just like the previous document.

Instead of revealing new allegations, the document just records Blanca Francia’s dealings with the media. At Jackson’s 2005 trial Blanca Francia admitted that besides Hard Copy she also contemplated to sell her story to the National Enquirer, but then she did not. From this document it appears this was because after her Hard Copy interview “the cops put her under wraps”.

“She got $20,000 from Hard Copy and supposedly regrets doing it because after her segment aired the cops put her under wraps.”

Of course, when the cops “put her under wraps” she was not able to sell her story to more tabloid media. We also learn from this document that Blanca Francia already planned a civil lawsuit against Jackson before the criminal proceedings were even over:

“[She] told her friend that when the Jackson criminal case is over, she will sue Jackson for molesting her son.”

The document further states that “the cops are looking for agreements between Jackson and parents of children who [blocked – presumably Blanca Francia] allegedly eye witnessed being molested including [blocked].”  No such agreements were ever presented despite a decade long investigation.

The second part of the document contains more rumours and speculations, nothing that was ever confirmed or proven. The document cites an unnamed “source” about certain allegations and rumours (none of which was ever confirmed or proven) and about detective’s beliefs and what actions they plan to take. It states:

“Detectives believe that so many people have been bought off, there is nobody to talk to.”

It is well documented that investigators in the Jackson case were biased and very hostile against the entertainer from the beginning. For example, in this article you can read about how they tried to convince boys to say that Jackson molested them by using improper interrogation techniques. In our article about Jason Francia you can read even more about those interrogation techniques.

So when their preconceived opinion about Jackson’s guilt was not supported by evidence and testimony they excused that by “believing” that the reason for that is that Jackson paid off people and not that maybe he was innocent, after all. However, there was never any evidence in support of the “belief” that Jackson paid-off people to keep silent about abuse. Instead of any proof that Jackson paid off dozens of boys, what we find in this document are speculations on the part of a desperate and biased prosecution and media to excuse their lack of evidence against the singer. Beliefs however need to be proven to become more than just uncorroborated opinions. Jackson was put to trial in 2005, after more than a decade of investigation, and no evidence of him paying off people to silence boys was ever presented.

Moreover, consider the fact that Jackson’s first accuser did everything feasible in order to receive a settlement in order not to go public or to trial in 1993. It is recommended to read our article about the Chandlers’ monetary demands which puts this uncorroborated myth of Jackson paying off people left and right into perspective. If it was routine for Jackson to pay off boys to not to go public and to authorities with their allegations then why did he refuse to pay off the Chandlers when they admittedly wanted nothing more than a pay-off from the very beginning?

Document 3

3

This is a document that appears to record a conversation between Jim Mitteager and Anthony Pellicano on December 10, 1993. It is a mystery about what it is supposed to prove, because it actually contradicts what the Sunday People claims, as here Pellicano tells Mitteager that there is no other accuser than Jordan Chandler.

“There is no other kid. Now that’s the thing that nobody is paying any attention to. They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There is no other kid.”

Please also consider that the date of this alleged conversation is December 10, 1993 – which is around the time when Pellicano stopped working for Jackson. Previously Pellicano worked closely together with one of Jackson’s lawyers Bert Fields, they left the case because they did not agree with the direction that some of Jackson’s other lawyers were taking. Upon leaving Pellicano stated that he believed in Jackson’s innocence and his leaving was no indication of otherwise.

The Sunday People chose not to include it, but there is another conversation between Pellicano and Mitteager that is recorded on Mitteager’s tapes. It was recorded in September 1994. Paul Barresi gave this tape to reporter Aphrodite Jones a couple of years ago, who published the transcript on her website. On this tape Pellicano talks about his conversation with Jordan Chandler who told him that Jackson never molested him and that his father only wanted money.

“PELLICANO:  You have to understand something. I have nine kids.  Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby.  They crawl all over him.  They pull his hair.  They pull his nose.  Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face.  If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER:  Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO:  Not only that.  If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games.  I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is.  Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation.  He going to say all kinds of stuff.”  He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.”  As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes.  Then I tried tricking him.  I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian.  I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb.  So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either.  And I said Michael is all upset.  We went over and over.  I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there.  I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Schwartz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about?  And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions.  There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.” [5]

Document 4

4

This is a transcript of an audio taped interview with a couple, Philip and Stella LeMarque. The couple who worked for Jackson in 1991 for ten months (they claimed two years in the media, but at Jackson’s 2005 trial Philip LeMarque admitted it was only ten months), alleged on this tape that they witnessed Jackson behave inappropriately with certain boys. The Sunday People presented these allegations as if they were some kind of bombshell news, never before heard allegations, even suggesting that the couple’s claims were verified by the FBI.

In reality the LeMarques’ claims are nothing new and certainly not proven. Philip LeMarque testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial about his allegation that he witnessed Jackson put his hand in Macaulay Culkin’s pants, but was discredited by Culkin himself.

The document the Sunday People presented in 2013 was the transcript of an interview that tabloid broker Paul Barresi conducted with the LeMarques on August 28, 1993 – five days after the Chandler allegations hit the media. However, in a 1994 documentary entitled Tabloid Truth even Barresi himself expressed  doubt about the credibility of the couple. Barresi, a self-confessed opportunist, admitted he did not care if a story he sold to tabloids was true or not as long as he was paid. Watch Barresi talk about the LeMarques between 30:14-35:35 and between 36:55-37:10 in the video below:

Like neither one of these so called “third party witnesses” the LeMarques initially did not turn to authorities either, but tried to sell their story to tabloids for money. First their asking price was $100,000 then they promised to further embellish their story if they got $500,000. (Watch Barresi talk about it in the above documentary at 36:55-37:10.) It was admitted by Philip LeMarque in Court as well.

Q. You upped the price to 500 from $100,000 at one point?

A. Yeah, to see if we were going to do it. [6]

and

Q. Did you have a discussion with Paul Baressi where you said, “We don’t want 100,000. We want 500,000”? Yes or no.

A. Yes. [6]

It has to be noted that the LeMarques were in huge debt when they attempted to sell molestation stories about Jackson to tabloids. In their interviews with Barresi, the LeMarques alleged to have witnessed improprieties between Jackson and other boys as well, not only Macaulay Culkin, but interestingly those stories were never even brought up by the prosecution at Jackson’s 2005 trial.  Perhaps because not even this prosecution, which otherwise threw everything but the kitchen sink at Jackson, felt these stories were credible?

Document 5-6

56

These documents are property receipts about someone providing audio tapes to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and the FBI respectively. They were probably attached to the Sunday People’s article in an attempt to give the documents some sense of “officialism” and somehow to link them to the FBI. However, the only thing they prove is that someone provided audio tapes to authorities. They do not reveal anything about the authorities’ opinion about the provided material.

Thanks to the 1994 Tabloid Truth documentary (see above) we know how and why Document 5 was produced. That document is the property receipt about someone giving the audio tape of the LeMarque interview to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office on August 30, 1993. From the Tabloid Truth documentary we know this was Paul Barresi himself and that it is his name that is blacked out on the document attached by Sunday People. Please stop the above shown documentary at 34:00. It is exactly the same document that the Sunday People tried to pass on as some newly discovered “FBI file” in 2013! However, in the documentary Barresi himself explains what it really is and the purpose why it was produced. The relevant part is at 33:00-35:01 in the documentary.

Barresi’s explanation in the documentary gives us an insight into the manipulative tactics of the tabloid world:

“I knew how to play the tabloids like a harp.”

If Barresi brought the tape to the DA he’d have nothing to fear for his illegal tape recording. Besides it would juice up the story. If the DA’s working on it that’s action, that’s inside information!

“That was the edge that worked well. If my story appeared in the slightest innocuous they would throw it out the window. So this is one way to do it with grand style, certainly.”

“So I called the editor of the Globe and I said: ‘I have a tape, I’m on the way downtown to hand it to the District Attorney.’ And his words were: ‘Let us come with you.’ And then I knew I had them. The next though on my mind was I’m gonna ask for 30 thousand dollars. You always ask twice as much as what you hope to get. He put me on hold and within less than a minute came back and said: ‘well, we can’t give you 30, we give you 10.’ I said: ‘Make it 15.’ He said ‘You have a deal’.”

“Could you see the headline coming?”

“Oh, yeah. Sure. And I could see that money coming too.”

The Sunday People used the same manipulative tactics when they presented these documents as “FBI files”, knowing that linking them to the FBI would give them a sense of credibility and officialness in many people’s eyes – even though just because a paper is submitted to the FBI it does not mean it is credible or that its contents are proven. Upon scrutiny the documents fail to provide evidence for the paper’s claims, and can be traced back to Paul Barresi rather than the FBI. Barresi was clearly the anonymous source behind the Sunday People’s story presenting himself as someone who worked together with Pellicano on the Jackson case in 1993. However, Barresi never worked for Jackson, he is simply an opportunistic tabloid broker.

Jackson was on trial in 2005 and during that trial the FBI closely co-operated with the Santa Barbara prosecution. If the FBI had evidence of Jackson paying off people left and right why didn’t they introduce that evidence to the Court? In actuality, the only evidence of pay-offs which came out at the trial was the money the prosecution’s many witnesses – including  Blanca Francia and Philip LeMarque – received from the tabloid media for their allegations! It is ironic that the same media who paid out fortunes to people for the slander of Michael Jackson over the course of two decades, accused the singer of  secret pay-offs with no evidence to back any of it up.

For more about the media’s role in the Michael Jackson allegations please read this article!

Sources:

[1] James Desborough, David Gardner – Michael Jackson paid £23MILLION buying silence of at least TWO DOZEN young boys he abused over 15 years (Mirror.co.uk, June 30, 2013)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-paid-23million-buying-2011662

[2] Roger Friedman – Was There an Unknown Jacko Accuser? (FoxNews.com, March 25, 2005)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/03/25/was-there-unknown-jacko-accuser/print

[3] Brandon Q Adams Twitter
https://twitter.com/BrandonAdams22/status/351200257968840704

[4] Michael Jackson: The Making Of A Myth – Part 1
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

[5] Taped phone conversation between Anthony Pellicano and Jim Mitteager (September, 1994)
It was originally posted on Aphrodite Jones’ website at http://www.aphroditejones.com/Michael_Jackson_Trial/Michael_Jackson_Trial.htm
The website has been since then reorganized and the Michael Jackson Trial section is not available anymore.

[6] Phillip LeMarque’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 8, 2005)

Comments are closed

Did Jackson only befriend young boys?

No. A large portion of the media and the prosecution tried to portray Jackson as someone who was obsessed with young boys. In reality, Jackson almost always befriended whole families rather than children alone, and the young people around him were of both genders.

In his 2005 book entitled Lost Boy, Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit Culkin wrote:

“I have heard it reported that Michael always wanted to play only with boys (just as boys usually only want to play with other boys, I suppose), but I never noticed this to be true.  My six year old daughter Quinn (who, as her name would imply, was my fifth child) was always included in the activities that Michael would often plan, and was always made to feel as though she was a part of the gang.  As I say, Michael always treated my kids quite equally.”[1]

and

“I should here say that Michael ever seemed to genuinely like all of my kids (as they him), and quite equally so, I noticed, for I never found him in his visits or ours to be exclusionary or one to play favorites (holding one or some in higher esteem than the others; this sort of things).  Indeed, he seemed ever to treat with them all quite democratically and as though they were all of them (himself included) brothers and sisters of equal standing.”[1]

An example of how the media deliberately puts the focus on the boys while ignoring the girls and families around Jackson is their regular use of a photograph of Jackson and the Chandlers in Monaco, 1993. When there is an article about the allegations of the Chandlers in the media they often use this photograph as an illustration:

 MJjordanchandler01

However, here is the full context of that photograph:

 MJjordanchandler02

MJjordanchandler03

MJjordanchandler04

What they cut off from the photograph is Jordan’s sister whom Jackson holds in his arms, and the children’s mother, June. This is a well known method of media manipulation as illustrated here:

 mediaaltersviewMJ

Another example is a snippet out of a slanderous and manipulative British documentary on Jackson from 2005 entitled Michael Jackson’s Boys.

In the fashion of Martin Bashir, this documentary too operated using innuendo and suggestive narration in order to raise suspicion about Jackson’s relationship with male children. The innuendo was made about boys who befriended Jackson, even though said boys stated emphatically that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to them. For example, in this particular scene you can see a man called Damion Stein talk about the friendship between Jackson and his family when he was younger. The documentary is already suggestive in captioning Damion as “Michael’s Boy 1985-90” (at 0:26), even though Damion never claimed here or elsewhere any impropriety by Jackson. In actuality, Damion attests to the fact that what Jackson was looking for in these relationships was a family atmosphere and a relationship with the whole family. He speaks about how Jackson called his mother on the phone day and night, which made his father so jealous that he secretly taped their conversations (these tapes are now known as the Glenda Tapes [2] and some of them can be found on YouTube). If anyone could be considered the closest to Jackson from the family it was the mother, not any of the children. Yet, it does not prevent the documentary from going along with its agenda and labeling Damion“Michael’s Boy”.

For the record, the mother, Glenda Stein, stated on Facebook, commenting an article about Jackson in September, 2011, that she never believed that Jackson was a pedophile: “I never thought that Michael was a pedophile. He loved kids but not in that sick way. Leave his family alone.” [3]

In most other cases too it were families whom Jackson befriended, not individual boys.

It has also often been claimed by the media that Jackson “preyed on” boys with a single mother. Again, that is a myth created with an obvious agenda in the mind. While he had young friends who were raised by a single mother, however, by no means can that be established as a pattern. Most of the children he befriended lived in families with both the mother and the father being present in the children’s lives. In actuality, Jordan Chandler even had two fathers – a biological and a step-father, and two mother’s, his biological one and his step mother.

Here is an interview with the Cascio family on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show in December, 2010, talking about the same thing that Damion Stein talked about above: that what Jackson was looking for in these relationships was a family atmosphere.

While the media focused on the male children around Jackson, they rarely ever mentioned the female children. Children, like Kellie Parker, who had a role in Jackson’s 1988 movie, Moonwalker and who remained friends with him until the singer’s death. Here is Parker talking about Jackson after the singer’s death:

In a CineVegas Podcast with Vincent Paterson, after a Moonwalker screening in 2009 she said [4]

Kellie: “It’s hard… (losing composure, pauses) I’ll always feel that way. I’ll always be waiting for him.”
Steve Friess: “As I understand it you remained in contact with Michael up until very recently.”
Kellie: “Yeah. I remained very close with Michael for about ten years. Then after that I continued to stay in touch with him but not as regularly, every couple of years and then I did actually see him a couple of weeks before he passed away.”
Steve: “What was the occasion?”
Kellie: “I was working on a show he came to see, sort of randomly…”
Kellie: “I do know that in his life he would struggle with being so well known, that was sort of a constant struggle throughout his life. But I do have to say, I spent a lot of time with Michael alone on set, he and I had a lot of scenes together and he taught me so much. He was so dedicated. We would go through – before we even shot he and I would spend sometimes like half an hour together just improving, ’cause he was so committed to it.

[…]

“Michael was magic, pure and simple. He was a man who believed in the goodness of mankind and embodied pure unconditional love for the world. I am so sad on so many levels. For the loss of an innovative genius and who was music and dance personified, for the loss of a man who loved the whole world and touched so many lives, but mostly, for me personally, the loss of a friend that I loved so dearly.

Most people don’t know about how close I was to Michael for many years following ‘Moonwalker/Smooth Criminal’ because I was never one to exploit that, even to this day I rarely talk about it, for that was a friendship that I honored and respected as private. I feel compelled at this time though, to speak of my amazing friend, as a witness to his life, and the gentleness of his soul.

He taught me so much, both as an actor and as a person, he continually inspired me to reach beyond my boundaries. He and I spent a great deal of time, one on one, while filming ‘Moonwalker.’

I remember that he told me once to never rush an emotion, that everything in life has a rhythm, and that it is the pauses and silences that speak the truth. He understood this better than anyone, he had a way of quietly inspiring everyone around him to be better than ever thought they could be. He helped so many, and inspired us all.

Michael believed in Magic, he believed that we could change the world, and he had such unconditional love that when you were around him, you couldn’t help but believe it too. He is intertwined in all of who I am, I became a dancer because of him, I became an artist because he inspired me to dream, and a writer because he taught me the power of moving people through words and actions. I love you my friend, and I know you are in a better place, we were blessed to have you for as long as we did.”[3]

Kellie Parker as a child with Michael Jackson

Kellie Parker as a child with Michael Jackson

Many more examples of female children whom Jackson befriended can be found here: http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/

The figurative (and often literal) erasing of families and female children out of the picture that was painted of Michael Jackson by the media and the prosecution served the misleading and false portrayal of the relationship between Jackson and children.

girl_mj

Sources:

[1] Kit Culkin – Lost Boy (May 09, 2005, the book was published and distributed exclusively through KitCulkin.com)

[2] “Glenda Tapes” – Audio and Transcripts http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/glenda-tapes/backstory-glenda-stein-and-family-glenda-tapes/

Originally released in 2005 on http://www.hansnews.com

[3] Facebook comment by Glenda Stein on September 29, 2011 on AOL’s Facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/aol/posts/226747887382305?comment_id=2815772

[4] CineVegas Podcast with Vincent Paterson, after a Moonwalker screening in 2009 (For a secondary source see: http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/ )

Comments are closed

Has child pornography ever been found in Michael Jackson’s possession?

No. Police extensively searched Jackson’s premises both in 1993 and in 2003 and there was nothing illegal found, not in physical or digital format (ie. on computers). Child pornography is illegal to possess and the possession of it is a crime in itself, so had there been any child pornography found in Jackson’s possession he would have been charged with that crime and he never was charged with such a crime.

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

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

Despite the fact that investigators acknowledged that “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing” [1], the prosecution in the media tried to bolster their case by referring to two legal art photography books from the 1960s, found at Neverland during the 1993 investigation, as “child erotica” in a TV documentary because they included pictures of nude boys at play. One book, entitled The Boy: A Photographic Essay, judging from an inscription, was a gift Jackson received from a fan. The inscription read: “To Michael: From your fan, “Rhonda” ♥ 1983, Chicago”. The other entitled Boys Will Be Boys, had an inscription in it by Jackson himself and it read: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ.” [2] Since the two books are sequels to each other it is possible that they both were gifts from the same fan who inscribed one of the books. These books were shown to the jury at Jackson’s 2005 trial and possibly to the two Grand Juries which discussed the allegations against Jackson in 1994. These two books were a small portion of Jackson’s huge collection of art photography books, as he was an avid collector of books, especially art books, art photography books and vintage books. [3]

In the 2005 search police confiscated sixteen computers from Neverland, including four from Jackson’s bedroom, and sent them to the FBI for a forensic examination of their hard drives. None of the computers contained any illegal material or had any traces of access to illegal material on the Internet. The adult websites visited from the computers were all legal, heterosexual websites and the pictures found on their hard drives and stored in their caches, as far back as 1998, were legal, heterosexual material. Similarly, all the adult DVDs found in Jackson’s possession contained legal, heterosexual material. [4] [5] [6]

All of this material was irrelevant to the charges and could not be directly linked to the prosecution’s case, so Judge Rodney Melville did not allow the prosecution to refer to this evidence in court. [5] However, Judge Melville allowed the prosecution to introduce a couple of art books and a large amount of adult magazines into evidence [6]. The art photography books confiscated in the 2005 search were introduced because some of them included pictures of men and/or women partially clothed or nude. They were all legal and they were a small portion of the huge art book collection Jackson possessed. Most of them were found in big cardboard boxes among hundreds and thousands of other books [7].

The adult magazines found in Jackson’s possession noted release dates from 1991 up until September 2003 (the actual search took place in November 2003) and were all legally and commercially produced heterosexual material. Most of them were found in Jackson’s nightstand, in a box at the base of his bed and in a briefcase in a closet of his bedroom. The prosecution spent days displaying the magazines that they confiscated from Jackson’s bedroom on a big screen. [8] Observers wondered what point they were trying to make with the detailed, graphic presentation of this completely legal collection that only pointed to Jackson’s sexual interest in women, other than perhaps, trying to publicly humiliate him and prejudice the conservative jury against him in the absence of real, relevant evidence.

Although the prosecution claimed that Jackson showed adult material to the 2003 accuser, Gavin Arvizo, in order to “groom” him – a claim that we fully address when we discuss the Arvizo allegations – this would not explain the full array of Jackson’s adult magazines, many of which had release dates after the date the accuser left Neverland.

For a full survey of the books, magazines, DVDs and Internet material found in Jackson’s home read this article, which also puts everything that was found in a full context.

Sources:

[1] Jim Newton and Sonia Nazario – Police Say Seized Tapes Do Not Incriminate Jackson : Investigation: Officials continue to interview children in connection with molestation allegations. (Los Angeles Times, August 27, 1993)
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case

[2] Court Documents and Transcripts from Jackson’s 2005 trial, for example, Closing Arguments by Thomas Mesereau (June 2, 2005)

[3] Information about Jackson’s extensive library
http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-library-favorite-books/

[4] The results of the FBI’s forensic examination of the hard drives of Jackson’s computers in Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%203%20of%203/view

[5] Judge may exclude Michael Jackson porn evidence (Associated Press, March 23, 2005)
Original place of publication (no longer active link): http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20050323/jackson_porn_050323?hub=CP24Sports
Saved article: Judge may exclude Michael Jackson porn evidence

[6] Jackson a “Playboy” Man (E!Online, March 23, 2005)
http://uk.eonline.com/news/jackson_playboy_man/49506

[7] Court Documents and Transcripts from Jackson’s 2005 trial, for example, the testimony of police officer Janet Williams (April 19, 2005)

[8] Court Transcripts from Jackson’s 2005 trial on March 24-28, 2005

Comments are closed

Is it true that Jordan Chandler publicly confessed after Michael Jackson’s death that Jackson did not molest him?

No, that is not true. The rumor that after the singer’s death Jordan Chandler publicly confessed that he was not molested by Jackson was an Internet hoax.

On the other hand, Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau said that at Jackson’s 2005 trial he had witnesses whom he would have called if Jordan had testified. These witnesses were people who personally knew Jordan and according to Mesereau Jordan privately confided in them that Jackson never molested him. [1]

However, publicly Jordan Chandler never made any comments about the case and he also refused to testify about it in a court. According to Jackson’s FBI files, when prosecutors asked him to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial he refused and he told them that “he would legally fight any attempt” to make him testify against Jackson. [2]

Sources:

[1] Michael Jacskon was Innocent – Tom Mesereau talks about how Jordan Chandler Lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0

[2] Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20305%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view (page 4)

Comments are closed

What about Jackson’s sharing his bedroom with unrelated children?

Many people base their own “guilty” verdict about Michael Jackson on the fact that in the 2003 Martin Bashir interview Living with Michael Jackson Jackson talked about “sharing his bed” with children. The infamous scene featured Jackson and his later accuser Gavin Arvizo. Jackson said whenever a child wants to sleep in his bed he allows them, while he would sleep on the floor on a sleeping bag. He said sometimes he and children, like Macaulay Culkin and his brother Kieran, slept in the same bed, but he usually would sleep on the floor. Jackson also stated that he never asked children to come to his bedroom:

“[W]e have guest units, but whenever kids come here they always want to stay with me, they never want to stay in the guest rooms. And I have never invited them into my room, they always just wanna stay with me. They say, ‘Can I stay with you tonight?’, so I go ‘If it’s OK with your parents then yes you can’.” [1]

In the interview this was supported by Gavin stating that he specifically asked Jackson to be allowed in his bedroom and sleep there with his brother, Star:

“Gavin: There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed’. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.

Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?

Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.” [1]

(Emphasis added.)

Never in the interview is it claimed that Jackson and Gavin slept in the same bed. In actuality, both state that Jackson slept on the floor and later, at the 2005 trial Gavin testified that Jackson’s friend and personal assistant Frank Cascio also slept in the room that night, as well as Gavin’s brother, Star [2]. In his 2011 book entitled My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man Cascio recalls that it were the Arvizo children who insisted they wanted to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom despite the fact that Jackson was reluctant to let them.

“Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo – the boys’ mother] said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s fucked up.” I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.” [3; Kindle Locations 3868-3873]

Nevertheless this is the scene in the Bashir documentary that caused worldwide uproar and speculation about the nature of Jackson’s relationship with children. The picture the media painted of Jackson was of a predator who lured children in his bedroom while keeping them away from their parents. In reality, Jackson’s two-story bedroom was a gathering place for families and friends, and the parents and families of the children were allowed to stay there as well as the children.

In his 2005 book entitled Lost Boy, Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit Culkin wrote the following about these so called “sleepovers”:

“Michael’s bedroom (an enormous room with alcoves and dressing rooms and a fireplace and French doors leading out to a private garden, as well as a stairway leading to the entire upstairs) was almost always an open place to hang out in, as was most all of the rest of the house.  My children would sit on the bed, as would I, to play cards or checkers, or watch television or whatever, but then we would do so most everywhere else also.  They might of occasion fall asleep there, just as they might of occasion fall asleep most anywhere else, and at most any daylight hour.  While they had a bedtime, I rarely enforced it, as they were, after all, at Neverland to play; and as is most always the case with children (as any parent will tell you), they never enforced it themselves, thinking that they should get some rest so as to be better rested to play again the coming day. Children don’t worry about “the coming day”.  Therefore, I was constantly and most usually after suppertime, having to round them up and often carry them (sometimes by golf cart) to their accommodations. They’d fall asleep watching a movie at the movie theater or playing with the toy trains in the toy trains room, and there was one occasion, I well remember, when one of them was actually found asleep on the carousel!” [4]

He also wrote:

“First of all, I never saw or heard anything at all during my early days of knowing Michael to suggest that he was a pedophile.  I would note that a busload or two of kids might arrive at the estate of an afternoon and be taken straight to the amusement park or the movie theater, and then just as swiftly be bused back off the grounds.  In fact, I believe that there was an entire office in an adjacent building and an entire staff that was responsible for overseeing these visits; and I noted also that on no occasion at all did any of these children ever get asked to the house for any reason whatsoever.  These were all strictly well-planned and well-supervised excursions, and the people who made them up quite apart from the people (such as those of my own family) who were actual guests. And while we’re on the subject of guests, this list was hardly confined to children. Indeed, adults roamed most everywhere, many of them from the world of government, including (just for instance) former President and neighbor Ronald Reagan, together with “Just-Say-No” Nancy, as well as Secretary of Defense William Cohen and not a few others that I’ve since forgotten; none of whom certainly gave one the feeling that the estate was (goodness knows) a den of pedophilia.” [4]

Even Jordan Chandler’s mother, June Chandler admitted in her 2005 testimony that she was allowed to go into Jackson’s bedroom and stay there whenever she wanted:

Q. And why were you in the bedroom those ten times?
A. Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to go into the bedroom.
Q. Were you dropping clothes off?
A. Oh, I might have. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you ever sit down and watch T.V. or anything in there?
A. Yes.
Q. How often did you do that?
A. A few times.
Q. Did you ever have food delivered to you in Michael Jackson’s bedroom?
A. I don’t recall.[5]

Macaulay Culkin explained the “bedroom sharing” in an interview he gave to Larry King in 2004 (the part about the “bedroom sharing” can be found from about 1:17):

Another person who spent time with Jackson since an early childhood was Frank Cascio. In his 2011 book entitled My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man he too attested to the fact that the media often misrepresented this issue, which was not helped by the fact that Jackson often was misunderstood, sometimes genuinely, sometimes deliberately when he spoke about this issue in interviews. Something that Macaulay Culkin also noted in the above interview.

Cascio wrote in his book:

“In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light.

What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn’t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.

What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.

Now, I know that most grown men don’t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn’t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn’t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it’s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It’s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?

I’m quite sure that the answer is no.

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

The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.” [3; Kindle Locations 3738-3771]

Sources:

[1] Martin Bashir – Living with Michael Jackson (February 2003)

[2] Gavin Arvizo’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (March 14, 2005)

[3] Frank Cascio – My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man (HarperCollins, Kindle Edition, November 15, 2011)

[4] Kit Culkin – Lost Boy (May 09, 2005, the book was published and distributed exclusively through KitCulkin.com)

[5] June Chandler’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 11, 2005)

Comments are closed