meow kitty meow now

Gavin Arvizo: The Only Child Michael Jackson Ever Hated?

A Picture CAN Be Worth A Thousand Words...In Some Totally Unexpected Ways

A Picture CAN Be Worth A Thousand Words…In Some Totally Unexpected Ways

“One day he told me, ‘God forgive me, and don’t tell Katherine I ever said this, but I hate that kid. I so hate that kid…Part of me thinks that’s not right. You shouldn’t hate. But then I think, I can’t help it. I hate that kid for what he did to me.  My therapist is telling me that I need to get real and feel what I feel, not suppress it like I usually do. Well, how I feel is that I hate that kid. I do.’”-Michael Jackson, as quoted in The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story 1958-2009 by J. Randy Taraborrelli.

For a man who befriended hundreds of children in his lifetime, who helped thousands; who donated millions of dollars to charitable children’s causes; who worked tirelessly most of his adult life to promote causes that benefitted children; who advocated for children’s rights to the point that his dedication became almost saint-like in its zeal, Gavin Arvizo has a unique distinction among them. He just may be the only child Michael Jackson ever admitted to hating, at least if we are to believe this account related by Taraborelli. Admittedly, it’s a second-hand account passed on from a source who “claims” to have heard it straight from the man, but nevertheless, I don’t doubt its authenticity. Michael was no saint, after all, and after what he was put through by Gavin Arvizo and his scheming family, he certainly had every reason to hate “that kid.”

But today, I want to take a look at what transpired in this so-called friendship even before it got to that point. There exists a persistent media myth of Michael as a man who had many “special friends” among a select group of boys. There is some partial truth mixed into the myth. Michael did form many enduring friendships with some of the young men who idolized him-friendships that lasted well into these young mens’ adulthoods, despite some claims that he tended to lose interest as the boys matured. Over the years, a lot of twisted beliefs have been purported regarding those friendships, but I’m standing by a firm belief, based both on strong theory and fact, that the nature of these friendships have been much exaggerated. However, that is a topic I will take up again when I resume the Wade Robson series.

Aside From Feeling Sorry For Him Because He Had Cancer, All Indications Seem To Point Towards Gavin Arvizo As A Kid Whom Michael Didn't Even Particularly LIKE-Let Alone Molest!

Aside From Feeling Sorry For Him Because He Had Cancer, All Indications Seem To Point Towards Gavin Arvizo As A Kid Whom Michael Didn’t Even Particularly LIKE-Let Alone Molest!

However, if we look at the history of his acquaintance with the Arvizo family, it becomes apparent that Gavin Arvizo was never a “special friend” of Michael’s. In fact, based on what I have come to know, I believe it is entirely reasonable to assume that this was never a kid that Michael even particularly liked; a kid he never wished to even get close to, let alone one he would have ever attempted to molest. That may sound cold, but based on what I have researched, what I have been told, and even from Gavin’s own words, I believe it is true. Aside from the fact that Michael paid for Gavin’s cancer treatment (a goodwill gesture Michael extended to many such kids in need) there doesn’t exist beyond that any proof that Michael much wanted anything to do with this kid-or his family-past that point. He was kind enough to pay for the boy’s treatments; he invited this family into his home when they had no place else to go; he even bought (or gave them) a car, which, like everything else, they then abused to the point that it was no longer serviceable. 

In short, though Michael Jackson may have had many such close friends among the young boys of his acquaintance, Gavin Arvizo-the only kid to ever bring Michael Jackson to court-was not one of them. Ironic when you think about it. Maybe a little too ironic. Just maybe, that was part of the whole problem.

When Gavin Arvizo got married last November, an explosion of  well-timed articles by notorious Michael Jackson hater Diane Dimond suddenly appeared in many major media outlets. I don’t have permission from Dimond to reprint her articles here (nor do I intend to seek it), but nor do I wish to give her the satisfaction of increasing traffic hits to her apologist propaganda for Gavin and this family, a family that she obviously chose to become personal friends with long ago, thus eradicating even the slightest veneer of objectivity on her part when it comes to this case. In short, I won’t be reprinting her lies here, nor linking to them. But that being said, most fans and regular readers here are familiar enough with the details of those articles, in which young Gavin was painted as a victim, as a brave survivor of cancer and child abuse; as a martyr and hero (the only “victim” courageous enough to take on Michael Jackson in court; a good religious boy so selfless that he refuses even now to take advantage of the “six figure” amounts he has supposedly been offered; a pure soul so forgiving that even when the wedding dj “unknowingly” plays a Michael Jackson song, he just shrugs it all off good-naturedly and continues to dance, as if to say, “Aw, shucks. Well, it’s all good.”

Geez, could we just hang a halo on this guy’s head and be done with already? I already feel like I need a barf bag, and those are just the highlights.

Would You Dance To The Music Of The Man Who Molested You? At Your Wedding?

Would You Dance To The Music Of The Man Who Molested You? At Your Wedding?

But I will accede a few things about Gavin Arvizo. Yes, he is a cancer survivor, and I would certainly never begrudge any child who has survived cancer the right to a happily-ever-after end to his life. In fact, I hope he is able to achieve that (I am Christian enough to believe everyone deserves some measure of Grace, and Gavin Arvizo has had a pretty tough life). Yes, I believe he was a victim and an abused child-but not a victim of Michael Jackson. His abuse came at the hands of his own family, including a father who physically beat him and a con artist mother who manipulated him from an early age to lie for her. In fact, Gavin’s psychological abuse at the hands of his manipulative (and most likely mentally ill) mother was still causing him such emotional stress that as late as 2004, it was said that he still feared that “the bad people from JC Penney’s” would come to get him and his siblings (Janet had involved her kids in a lawsuit over an alleged sexual assault by JC Penney employees). And in July of 2007, a story ran in The New York Daily News that claimed Janet had turned her back on her son for apparently failing to do a better job of convincing the jury in 2005. However, oddly enough, the story has disappeared and no links given to it seem to work. I was only aware if it myself after reading this 2010 post from the Smoke and Mirrors website:

However, it wouldn’t be a shocker for me if The New York Daily News has deleted the story.  As always, the media has gone out of its way to protect the so-called “victims” of Michael Jackson, while thinking nothing of dragging Michael’s name through the mud-a fact even more interesting when you consider the media villification of Mia and Dylan Farrow, a subject that has already been hashed out on many blogs. Clearly, the idea that the media automatically sides with the perceived “victims” in these cases is a myth. It depends on who is being accused.

But given what we know of Janet Arvizo’s mental history, the story is most likely true. Oddly enough, Janet was not even mentioned in the wedding articles ( Did she even attend? Was she even invited?). If true, this would be in perfect keeping with the pattern that has emerged in both accusation cases, since Jordan Chandler effectively “divorced” himself from his parents and had very little to do with them after the ordeal of the Michael Jackson allegations.

UPDATE (3/22/14): Janet Arvizo DID attend the wedding, as confirmed via the wedding photos.  (See link below in the comments section). 

But whatever may have transpired privately, the public Gavin has never wavered in his claims and has stood staunchly by the lies he was coaxed to believe-not only by his family, but an entire prosecution team.  Gavin’s childhood was not unlike that of poor Sartoris Snopes in William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning,” a child who is forced to back his con artist father in every scheme until he finally realizes his only chance to save himself and his own soul is to run away, leaving his family behind and starting a new life on his own. Not exactly an easy thing to do when you’re just a kid-in that time or any other.

Unfortunately, Gavin Arvizo never seems to have had any such degree of moral consciousness or awakening where his own mother was concerned-or if he did, he certainly never acted on it. The truth is that children like Sartoris Snopes probably only exist in fiction. In real life, children are usually apt to become what their parents mold them into. This certainly seems to have been the case with Gavin Arvizo. And it is enough to mitigate any sympathy that I might be inclined to feel toward him. Let’s not forget that by the time this whole mess went to trial, Gavin was fifteen years old-still a minor, yes. But old enough to be quite aware of the charade that was going on, and his own part in it.

The fact that Gavin’s claims of molestation were totally ripped to shreds in the courtroom, resulting in Michael’s acquittal on all counts, still leaves one puzzling question: If Michael didn’t molest Gavin, then why did Gavin so willingly put both himself and Michael through this ordeal? Could it have been spite of another kind?

I believe that is not only a possibility, but the most logical conclusion.

The evidence has shown that Gavin not only sought out and wanted Michael Jackson’s friendship, but even wanted him as a father figure (unless, of course, this was simply more of Janet Arvizo’s manipulation, which is possible). The kids were instructed to call Michael “Daddy.” According to what Michael said in his Shmuley Boteach interviews, he didn’t mind it at first:

SB: Do you feel that when you speak to people like Gavin, part of the pain goes away for them?

MJ: Absolutely. Because every time I talk to him he is in better spirits. When I spoke to him last night he said, “I need you. When are you coming home?” I said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I need you Michael.” Then he calls me “Dad.” I said, “You better ask your Dad if it is ok to call me that.” He shouts, “Dad, is it ok if I call Michael, ‘Dad?”‘ and he says, “Yes, no problem, whatever you want.” Kids always do that. It makes me feel happy that they feel that comfortable.-(Excerpted from The Michael Jackson Tapes, by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach). 

However, accounts I have heard from many who knew Michael contradict this. At any rate, he definitely seemed to resent being called “Daddy” by Janet Arvizo’s children as his relationship with this family soured, and especially once he began to realize that the Arvizo children calling him “Daddy” actually translated in this family’s minds to “Sugar Daddy.”

Additionally, Michael had children of his own by this point, so perhaps the word “Dad” had lost some of its appeal and luster. In other words, he didn’t quite have the driving need anymore to hear it from other kids besides his own. And I honestly think by this point, his own kids were the only ones he wanted calling him “Daddy.”

I firmly believe that Gavin Arvizo, at one point, wanted a close relationship with Michael, like the ones he may have heard that Michael had with Macauley Culkin, Frank Cascio, Brett Barnes and others, and was deeply disappointed-and later embittered-when things didn’t work out that way.

But there was one important difference. Those were friendships built on mutual respect and trust. Macauley Culkin, for example, had his own money, and wasn’t some needy kid who was co-dependent on Michael’s affections. To be fair, of course, he also wasn’t a cancer victim from a dysfunctional family. (I think the Culkins were most likley dysfunctional in a different kind of way; show business families generally are, but at any rate, they were not a family dependent on Michael for money and “perks” so therein lies the difference).

However, it didn’t take Michael long to learn that both Gavin and his family were milking the “cancer victim” thing for all it was worth. It was also proven that this family had bilked many celebrities out of millions, even though the family had medical insurance that covered most of Gavin’s treatments.

As The Cancer Went Into Remission, Gavin's True Colors Began To Show.

As The Cancer Went Into Remission, Gavin’s True Colors Began To Show.

What’s more, as soon as the illness was in remission and some of the harsher effects of the treatments had worn off, Gavin’s true personality started to emerge. From many accounts, ranging from Neverland employees to witnesses in the courtoom, it seems that Gavin Arvizo was just not a very likeable kid. Spoiled and prone to temper tantrums when he didn’t get his way, Gavin seems by most accounts to have been a testy and temperamental child who had all the early markings of a trouble maker. Court testimony would reveal quite a different story from the innocent little angel who was being depicted in the media, and even in the Living With Michael Jackson documentary. Instead, he was revealed as a bit of a hoodlum who vandalized property, terrorized the staff, acted as though he had free reign of the property, wrecked golf carts (an act he and his brother Star both seemed quite adept at), broke into the wine cellar, and on at least one occasion, were caught by one of Michael’s cousins masturbating to pornography that they had gotten access to by breaking into Michael’s private quarters. For sure, Gavin was not the innocently naive boy about sex and sexual matters that much of his testimony relied upon:

You know, I’m not going to judge Gavin’s character now because I don’t know him. Maybe adulthood has brought some level of maturity. But apparently, the Gavin Arvizo that Michael Jackson knew as a kid was one conniving little manipulator-one that Michael quickly came to see through.

It’s a complex issue because, on the one hand, here you have this kid who does seem to be desperately seeking a father figure-and some much needed guidance. Perhaps Michael tried to be as patient as he could, but in the end, his patience wore out. He had to start distancing himself from this family for his own sanity and peace of mind-and perhaps to preserve what was left of his home before these little terrorists wrecked it completely and drove away all the staff!

Before things turned sour, this rare video footage was shot of Michael showing Gavin about the grounds of Neverland. I find the body language of this video somewhat interesting. Michael is affectionate enough with Gavin, but his demeanor is very reserved and uncharacteristically withdrawn (if one notes how he usually behaved around kids). It seems that Gavin initiates much of the physical contact, such as the hand holding or locking of arms (watch at 5:13). Michael reciprocates, of course, but only after Gavin has made the initial gesture. Otherwise, Michael seems to be keeping a distance throughout the tour, usually walking ahead or to the right. Although he is heard joking around with Gavin and Star at about 6:01, his whole demeanor throughout this video seems perfunctory and rather cool. I get the feeling he was doing this more to satisfy the child’s whims than his own. Why was it being filmed? Who knows. Michael tended to document most everything in his life; most likely, he intended to use this as some sort of promotional footage down the road, just as the footage with Ryan White eventually became a very smart promotional strategy. (While Michael certainly genuinely cared for all of the sick children he helped through the years there was no argument that it was also very good for the image). Or perhaps this was merely private footage that was leaked, but I suspect there was most likely some motive behind it. Michael had also learned by this time that it paid to keep a record of everything-just in case, well, you know, someone gets it in their head to bring a lawsuit. Or to make an accusation. Which, of course, was bound to end in a lawsuit of some sort. Having most of your life on camera was one sure way to hedge a lot of it.

No one ever said it was a “normal” life.

But if we pay close attention to the body language of Michael and Gavin in this casual clip, we can see there is none of the easy camraderie that we see, for example, in similar clips of Michael and Ryan White:

Or here:

In other words, the impression I get is that Michael didn’t ever seem especially comfortable or at ease with Gavin, and his interactions with him seem more like fulfilling an obligation as the kid’s host. That seems cold, but is it possible that Michael simply never took to this kid-perhaps sensed something “off” about him, and was trying to create distance?

What we do know, based on Gavin’s own court testimony, is that over time he became bitter-not because Michael had sexually abused him, but for quite the opposite reason- because Michael ceased wanting anything to do with him, and became increasingly remote. There is even a story, revealed during Gavin’s court testimony that once, Gavin had been told Michael was not around-only to have the embarrassing and rather awkward experience of  accidentally “bumping into” him on the Neverland property. By that time, the message was loud and clear that Michael was avoiding him. Gavin would recount this incident as one that “broke his heart.” But while this statement makes Michael seem very cold and poor Gavin as a victim, let’s not forget all that Michael had done-which was certainly above and beyond-to save Gavin’s life and to ease his family’s life during this difficult time. Michael had extended kindness and lavish hospitality upon this family, only to be repaid by having his property vandalized, his employees terrorized, and his credit cards maxed as Gavin’s family helped themselves to thousands of dollars worth of shopping sprees. In short, how much did Michael owe Gavin Arvizo or this family beyond what he had already done?

William Faulkner's Classic Story "Barn Burning" Tells The Story Of A Young Boy Who Faces A Moral Dilemma-Whether To Continue To Lie And Support His Father In All Of His Various Schemes And Crimes, Or To Run Away In Order To Save His Own Soul. It Is A Story Gavin Might Have Related To. But Fiction And Real Life Are Two Entirely Different Things.

William Faulkner’s Classic Story “Barn Burning” Tells The Story Of A Young Boy Who Faces A Moral Dilemma-Whether To Continue To Lie And Support His Father In All Of His Various Schemes And Crimes, Or To Run Away In Order To Save His Own Soul. It Is A Story Gavin Might Have Related To. But Fiction And Real Life Are Two Entirely Different Things.

Intense hate is only the flipside of intense love, and it seems that in Gavin’s case he was a kid doggedly determined to be Michael’s shadow. And-here’s a fact that may surprise some of you!-he seemed to have an inclination to be very physically affectionate and touchy-touchy in a way that made MICHAEL intensely uncomfortable!

I have already pointed out that in the above video of Michael and Gavin at Neverland that it is clearly GAVIN-not Michael!-who initiates whatever physical contact is made between them, whether it be hand holding or walking arm in arm. We can see with our own eyes in this clip that Michael goes along with it and reciprocates-as most adults would-but never at any time is he the initiator of the contact. This is important in establishing the fact that IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, from sleeping in Michael’s bedroom to the infamous “hand holding” segment shown in the Bashir doc, Gavin was actually the aggressor (though in the case of the Bashir doc, there is some dispute as to whether Bashir himself was, in fact, responsible for that shot. I will get to that incident in just a bit).

Frank Cascio describes how Gavin initially asked MICHAEL if he could sleep in his room:

Michael had actually been extra cautious about allowing strange kids access to his room since what had happened with Jordan Chandler in ’93. If it had been me, I think I would have kept my resolve with a firm and unequivocal “no.” But Michael had always been a softie when it came to kids. It’s too bad that the firm resolve and distancing that he later took with Gavin may have been a case of too little, too late.

And, from Gavin’s court testimony, here is another incident that describes Gavin VOLUNTARILY resting his head on Michael’s shoulder-a gesture he was apparently prone to doing, with no prompting on Michael’s part.

19 Q. Now, you talked yesterday about someone

20 named Brett Ratner. Do you remember that.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And he was working on a Rush Hour movie,

23 right.

24 A. Yes, he was the director for both of them.

25 Q. And you met Brett Ratner at Neverland one

26 time, right.

27 A. Yes, he came to Neverland once.

28 Q. And you saw him in the library, right. 2029

1 A. Michael and him were in the library, and

2 they told me to go there.

3 Q. You saw him in the library with Michael,

4 correct.

5 A. They told me to go in there.

6 Q. Okay. And you sat down next to Michael

7 Jackson, didn’t you.

8 A. I sat on the couch. I sat on this red couch

9 and Michael was sitting here on the seat, and Brett

10 Ratner was sitting here also.

11 Q. At one point during that meeting, you rested

12 your head on Michael Jackson’s shoulder, didn’t you.

13 A. No. It was early in the morning, and I

14 was — we were sitting — he was sitting on another

15 chair.

16 Q. And you asked if you could go with Michael

17 and Brett Ratner to Florida, didn’t you.

18 A. I don’t remember asking that.

Gavin denies the accusation, but even so, the pattern is consistent with many behaviors on Gavin’s part that we already know to be fact. Gavin would often use such ingratiating gestures toward Michael to build up for some huge favor he wanted to ask (note that in this case, he was said to have been begging to be taken along on a vacation to Florida with Michael and Brett Ratner).

Of course, Gavin’s exaggerated advancements of affection could have had a more sinister motive. The theory has been raised by some that the Arvizos may, in fact, have been plotting from the get-go to set Michael up. It’s possible although, I believe, a little far fetched. I am more inclined to believe that this was an idea that took hold once they were within Michael’s circle and the relationship turned sour. It would not explain, for example, why the Arvizos willingly left the picture until being called back for the Bashir doc. I think the idea took hold and grew in the aftermath of the Bashir doc, when the resultant media scrutiny both resulted in a further breakdown of the relationship and gave them the idea that not only could they make this accusation fly, they could even make it somewhat “plausible,” especially after consulting Larry Feldman, the attorney for the Chandlers. Let’s not forget that the Arvizos actually tried to sell the idea that Michael had only molested Gavin AFTER the documentary had aired, which is completely ludicrous considering this would have meant Michael only decided to molest Gavin after  the eyes of the world had turned on this relationship.

Only So That He Could Then Use The Footage As An Excuse To Narrate How Michael Was

The Arvizos had actually been out of Michael’s life for some time-and might have thankfully remained so-had it not been for the Martin Bashir doc “Living With Michael Jackson.” It was reportedly Bashir’s idea to get on film some of the children Michael had helped in the past, although it is possible this idea may have at least partially originated with Michael himself. Remember that at the time, Michael was hoping to use this documentary to help promote his idea of a National Children’s holiday. Michael was also under the impression, having been falsely led by Bashir, that the purpose of this documentary was to help rehabilitate his image. People would finally be allowed to see what Michael Jackson was all about-helping kids.

What would emerge as the most controversial aspect of that documentary-aside from Michael’s “What’s wrong with sharing your bed?” comment-was the shot of Gavin apparently “cuddling” with Michael. In the footage that sent many shock waves rippling, Gavin places his head on Michael’s shoulder and holds hands with him. Had this been the sickly, emaciated child of a couple of years ago, it might not have had quite the same effect. But this was a now apparently healthy kid who, for all purposes, was making goo-goo eyes at Michael for all America and the UK to see.

However, there was apparently much more to this footage than met the eye. We have already seen that Gavin tended to behave very affectionately toward Michael, even with no encouragement from Michael. And indeed, in the rebuttal video, Gavin is seen holding hands with his own mother just as he had with Michael! Of course, this part could very well have been staged but I’ve seen enough to convince me that this was a natural reaction of Gavin’s when he was around an adult he felt close to (or perhaps wished to manipulate). Also, note Janet’s uncharacteristic make-up and perfectly manicured nails when the camera zooms in for the close-up of their clasped hands-that was all courtesy of Michael Jackson’s expense!

It was revealed a few years ago that Bashir had actually coached Gavin to lay his head on Michael’s shoulder and hold his hand during that segment. Aphrodite Jones had mentioned this in several interviews, which apparently was information relayed to her by Thomas Mesereau. I asked her about this in 2010, and she not only confirmed that I had heard correctly, but also revealed for the first time the information she relays in this radio interview of Michael’s response: “Why is this kid leaning on me?”

Let’s go back and re-visit that segment of the Bashir doc. What I find interesting is how the segment featurng Gavin segues from a previous segment showing Michael taking a group of kids through Neverland. All of this builds up to Bashir’s voice over narration reminding viewers of the Chandler allegations ten years before, and stating he would have thought that Jackson had learned to be more cautious. He then goes on to say he was “appalled” to learn that children were still sleeping over at Neverland. What is ironic in this? Because it was actually BASHIR’S idea for Michael to have that busload of kids come in that day, just for the express purpose of having footage that would show Michael interacting with kids! The true story would be laughable if it hadn’t all turned out so tragic. What Martin Bashir (whose very agenda was to portray Michael as a suspected criminal from the get-go) discovered, much to his dismay, was a Neverland without kids! At least, other than Michael’s own, but that hardly suited the agenda that he had come prepared to “prove.” So he convinced Michael to bring in a busload of kids for the express purpose of filming his Neverland interactions with kids. Granted, this was a tradition that Michael had begun at Neverland some time ago, but there were no kids on that particular day. And often, Michael was not even on the premises when these under privileged kids came and went. But…on that day, because Bashir had specifically requested that he have kids to film at Neverland, Michael makes a call and has a busload come in. (I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for him in that footage; he doesn’t even look as if he feels particularly well that day, and he’s having to entertain these kids just so Bashir can get the footage he wants, never dreaming, of course, that the finished product would be played out with that sinister narrative voice over reminding viewers of the Chandler allegations).

And the deceptive manipulation gets even better when the narration about kids “still sleeping over” cuts to Star and Gavin Arvizo, who-let’s not forget- had only been called back for the express purpose of filming this documentary!

But here’s where I want to go with this. If you watch this clip beginning at 9:01 you can see an interesting contrast between Michael’s and Gavin’s demeanor and overall body language. Whereas Gavin seems perfectly comfortable and natural holding hands with Michael. Michael clearly looks very uncomfortable and squirm-ish in the scene. Notice that his entire body and posture remains very stiff. Just as in the earlier footage from 2000, he seems to be maintaining a purposeful, physical distance from Gavin. It’s akin to the adoring partner who tries to cuddle on a sofa, while the disinterested party tries as surreptiously as possible to scoot to the opposite end-without being blatantly obvious, of course.

In fact, the more I watch this footage the more convinced I am that Michael most likely was set up in this scene. Obviously, he wasn’t going to be rude and push Gavin away with the camera rolling (in fact, I doubt he would have done so even had no cameras been rolling) but his discomfiture is quite obvious. It makes it seem even more plausible to me that he probably asked the question, “Why is this kid leaning on me?” Even if he never spoke the words, you can tell he certainly must have been thinking them!

Whatever the case, Michael and Gavin would both have their share of fall-out over that staged scene. For Michael, it would result in a nightmare of media scrutiny and a criminal investigation. For Gavin, it led to school bullying and intrusive harrassment as the pressure increased from all sides to “confess”…Something. Anything.

8 Q. Now, when you went back to school after you

9 left Neverland Ranch – okay. –

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. — March and April, you were at John

12 Burroughs, correct.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did — what was — what was it like when you

15 went back to school.

16 A. All the kids would laugh at me and try to

17 push me around and stuff, and say, “That’s the kid

18 that got raped by Michael Jackson,” and stuff like

19 that.

20 Q. Did — what was your reaction to that.

21 A. I would sometimes not say anything and just

22 walk away. And if they got close enough, sometimes

23 I would fight them. After they hit me first,

24 because I didn’t like to throw the first punch,

25 because I believe that — I mean

Despite all of the bullying and media scrutiny after the Bashir doc, Gavin Arvizo was at first reluctant to go along with his family’s scheme to bring charges against Michael. So what made him change his mind? Let’s not forget that teenagers are still very emotionally vulnerable people. If you have enough adults around you hammering and chipping away at you, sooner or later you’re either going to give in, or break.

I believe strongly that what happened in Gavin’s case was that here was a man he had once idolized and looked up to, who had seemed in Gavin’s eyes to have turned on him. In Gavin’s mind, he had taken a lot of flack for being Michael’s friend, and couldn’t understand why the man he called “Daddy” had now turned on him. Perhaps he was genuinely unaware that his own bratty behavior and the questionable motives of his family had led to that distancing; that rather than being genuinely grateful for the help they had been given, their sense of entitlement had grown exponentially. Apparently, from all I have gathered, they were doing more than just taxing Michael financially. They had become a bit of an emotional burden as well, demanding that he fulfill some role that he had never been obligated to fill in the first place, as not just a financial provider but a surrogate parent as well.

I'm Convinced This Was An Abandonment Issue, Not A Molestation Issue

I’m Convinced This Was An Abandonment Issue, Not A Molestation Issue

Could it be that Gavin’s eventual resentment of Michael Jackson had more to do with abandonment issues than any supposed molestation? I am at the very least 99% convinced that this is the case. Or at least I believe it is the factor that planted the seed. Eventually, I believe that somewehere along the way-between the brainwashing of Sneddon, Feldman, Zonen, and, of course, his good friend Diane Dimond-Gavin became genuinely convinced that, even if Michael hadn’t molested him, that he was a bad man who deserved to be punished. After all of these years of the pestilence that has been poured into his ear from these factions, I’m sure he has convinced himself quite well that Michael must have been guilty of something.

13 Q. Okay. Gavin, I just have one last question

14 to ask you: Yesterday in response to Mr. Mesereau’s

15 questions, you told him that Mr. Jackson was like a

16 father figure to you; is that correct.

17 A. Michael Jackson.

18 Q. Yeah.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And that you thought he was one of the

21 coolest guys in the world, correct.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And that you admired him.

24 A. Well, I only admire God, but he was a pretty

25 cool guy.

26 Q. How do you feel about Mr. Jackson now in

27 light of what he did to you.

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. 352; relevance; 2073

1 leading.

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

3 THE WITNESS: I don’t really like him

4 anymore. I don’t think he’s really that deserving

5 of the respect that I was giving him and as the

6 coolest guy in the world.

But the one thing he will probably never confess-not even to himself, I would suspect-is that his resentment of Michael really began that day he was told Mr. Jackson was nowhere around, only to bump into him on the Neverland grounds. There is a part of me that pities a child who looks up to a man, who calls him “Daddy” and then has to find out the hard way that this man is actually trying to ease him out of his life. But given what we know of the Arvizos and their behavior at Neverland-as well as a past history of grifting that Michael was slowly becoming savvy to-we can’t entirely blame him for doing what he had to do. In a way, perhaps this whole, unfortunate case really claimed TWO victims-Michael, whose life would ultimately be ruined over it, and Gavin, whose innocence and ability to believe had to have at least become somewhat tarnished as a result of this experience.

But while I can feel somewhat sorry for Gavin the child, Gavin the man is a different story. He has the adult ability now to look back in hindsight and realize right from wrong. Perhaps we can argue that Michael’s way of dealing with the situation was cold, but over the years, Michael (whose life we must remember had not been “normal” since age ten) had learned early that it was sometimes the only way of coping with a bad situation. If you want a bad seed out of your life, you nip it before it even has a chance to become a bud. I would imagine the situation with Jordan Chandler had further fueled his distrust of too-clinging kids and parents with dubious motives.

Of course Gavin will probably never accept himself as that potential bad seed. I believe his view of Michael is still that of the thwarted child who has never been able to forget a promise that, in his mind, somehow went unfulfilled.

The only thing that still leaves an unsettling question in my mind is…why did Michael agree to bring the Arvizos back into his life? Surely there were many other children he had helped that he could have chosen to call in for the documentary. As Aphrodite Jones stated in the above interview, he had considered Dave Dave, the boy who was severely burned by his father. I’m sure there were many others who would have gladly accepted this offer. Why Gavin? The question is a bit of a mystery although perhaps, in the end, the sheer miraculousness of his recovery was incentive enough. Gavin, at the time, was the best example of how love and faith (along with a lot of financial help) can create a miracle. He was the best example of what Michael was innocently hoping to prove with this documentary-while also, perhaps, best fitting the bill for Bashir’s own ulterior motives.

Did Gavin ultimately feel used, perhaps even betrayed by Michael? I certainly think that we can’t rule it out as a possibility, and again, this may go a long way towards understanding how and why Gavin ultimately came to be so bitter towards a man who never touched him sexually, to the point that he was able to convince himself that Michael Jackson was a man unworthy of “the respect” he claims he had once felt for him.

But there are some things we have to keep in perspective. If Michael “used” Gavin to promote his own image, it perhaps bears no greater  culpability than the amount of “using” this family did to him in terms of milking every advanatge that could possibly be gained by this relationship-and in the end, destroying his life. Whatever the ends to the means, there is one fact we have to keep uppermost in mind. Michael didn’t have to take on the expense of this kid’s cancer treatments, nor invite them into his home and his life.  In the end, whatever you can say, Michael and God were directly responsible for giving Gavin his life. Did Michael really “owe” the Arvizos anything more beyond that? It’s great that Gavin still credits God’s role in saving him. But it is despicable the way he has treated the man who was, in essence, the other half of that healing team.

While this post may be an attempt to understand Gavin’s motives, it is by no means an excuse for them. It would be nice to say that, regardless of who was using who or who betrayed who, that in the end the score was evened between Michael and Gavin Arvizo. But that is hardly the case. While Michael lies in a tomb in Forest Lawn, Gavin Arvizo dances to MJ tunes at his wedding.

I’m sure in his mind he perceives this as a just and fitting end. At any rate, even now-nine years after “The Trial of the Century”-he certainly has enough cheerleaders in his corner to convince him that this is the case. This perceived sense of “justice winning out in the end” was certainly the entire slant of Diane Dimond’s many articles “celebrating” the event. But the reality depends on which side of the glass one is looking from. Gavin’s story did not convince a jury, and to this day, even many of the most cynical, diehard Michael Jackson haters have expressed genuine doubt over this case. While it may be true to say that Gavin was the only kid who faced Michael Jackson down in court (a fact is a fact, after all) Gavin also must live every day with the fact that his story wasn’t believed, and that the man who helped make it possible for Gavin to live to see his wedding day has paid the ultimate price. Diane Dimond didn’t bother telling that part of the tale. She never will.

Gavin Arvizo may have survived cancer, and he may have survived a dysfunctional raising. But in that regard, Gavin is no more or less courageous than the many hundreds of kids who beat those odds every single day. He managed to beat those odds, at least in part, with the help of a man he later turned on. His motives appeared to have been as genuinely muddled and confused as the case itself.

I don’t know how much credence to give the Taraborelli source. However, Michael was human and as prone to human emotion as any of us. “Hate” is a strong word, and even in this context, we see that Michael was reluctant to use it. But if he was acting on a therapist’s advice, it was advice intended to make him finally embrace his honest emotions, rather than, as he said, suppressing them “like I always do.”

Ultimately, Gavin Arvizo will be viewed as either a brave, unsung hero (if you buy the version Diane Dimond is selling) or as the villain that he is to most MJ fans. But the truth, as they always say, is probably closer to the middle. Gavin chose the most vicious way possible to lash out and “pay back” the man he felt had turned his back on him. At the time, perhaps he failed to realize that the greatest and most precious gift Michael had given him-his life-should have been one that far outweighed all other petty matters.

To be the only child that Michael ever hated is no easy feat. It took hard work and dedication to earn that title, for we know it was not a title easily won. But Michael would have been expressing these thoughts on the flipside of everything that Gavin Arvizo had put him through.

But hatred aside (which, as I’ve said, is a pretty strong word) I have come to the conclusion that Michael never even particularly liked Gavin Arvizo, at least once Gavin had gotten better and his real personality started to show itself. I believe that Michael engaged in a deliberate campaign to distance himself from Gavin and his family. At best, Gavin was a clingy, overly needy child who demanded attention and special favors. Perhaps if he could have been isolated at an early age from the influence of his mother, there might have still been hope for him. But by the time he met Michael, the damage to his personality was already complete. And thus, Michael Jackson, the man who had spent so much of his adult life “adopting” families, effectively rejected Janet Arvizo and her kids. There would be hell to pay, and indeed there was.

Only Gavin knows what was going through his mind as his hired wedding dj spun “The Way You Make Me Feel.” I would like to think that what he “felt” was at least some twinge of guilt or shame. Or something, even if only all of those old repressed feelings of betrayal and resentment. But the far more likely truth is that Diane Dimond got it right (this one thing, at least) when she said all it elicited from him was an indifferent shrug. Of course, her spin would be that Gavin has moved on from the painful memories of nine years ago.

The far more likely truth is that Gavin, true to his nature, is a man who doesn’t waste much time thinking about the consequences of his actions, especially in regard to how they affect others. “Looking out for number one” is a lesson his mother Janet taught him well.

As painful as it may be to accept, the most likely response that Gavin felt to hearing “The Way You Make Me Feel” was to feel absolutely nothing at all. In all likelihood, Gavin will raise a family and have a respectable career. He will spend as little time as possible thinking about Michael Jackson, and when he does, it will be with the conviction that he was justified in his actions. But mostly, Michael Jackson, the man who stepped in and saved his life when so many other celebrities had turned his family away, will just be an unpleasant blimp on those accomplishments. Something he would probably just as soon forget if it weren’t for his good friends like Diane Dimond and Ron Zonen who continue to make him the martyr that perhaps he never wanted to be.

Michael Could Forgive Most Anything Except For A Selfish Nature. He Was Critical Of It In Himself; Even Moreso In Others.

Michael Could Forgive Most Anything Except For A Selfish Nature. He Was Critical Of It In Himself; Even Moreso In Others.

Michael could forgive most anything except a selfish nature. He was hard on that quality in himself; even harder when he perceived it in others. Could it be that Michael saw in Gavin the quality that would compel him to bite the very hand that fed him? Perhaps. Personally, I find it revolting that Gavin would have reacted the way he did to the teasing at school after Michael had saved his life. You would think he would have been willing to whale hell out of any kid who said anything about Michael. Of course, trying to predict or second guess what goes through a teenager’s mind at any time is a risky venture. Peer pressure is a power never to be under estimated. But whatever the case, it was clear that by the time all was said and done, Michael and Gavin had clearly become two parties locked in mutual hatred, distrust, and loss of respect. Perhaps they both saw in each other some qualities that were less than admirable. But keep in mind, this is not about Michael Jackson the perfect (or imperfect) human being. It is about whether he did or did not commit a crime. In the end, that is the only thing that matters.

If Michael disliked Gavin Arvizo to the point that he was actively avoiding him, then it stands to reason that he had zero interest in molesting him, at that time or any other. But we can hardly fault him if his life didn’t revolve around Gavin Arvizo. That was never his intention. It was the Arvizos who expected Michael to deliver the moon. And apparently, a rainbow and a bridge or two.

In a way, I suppose there is a kind of twisted poetic justice in Gavin’s ability to move on with his life, reducing Michael Jackson and everything he put him through to a mere blimp on his conscience. In his mind, I believe he feels totally justified in thinking this was what Michael did to him.

It’s not exactly turnabout, since the playing field is hardly even. But it seems to suit the Arvizo family logic perfectly.

Comments: 64 Comments

Comparing The Ian Watkins Case To MJ: What Lessons Can We Learn About The Media’s Coverage Of Celebrity “Pedophile” Cases: How Much Does Guilt Or Innocence Matter?

Other Celebrity Cases, Whether Fairly Or Not, Impact How The World Views The Michael Jackson Case.

Other Celebrity Cases, Whether Fairly Or Not, Impact How The World Views The Michael Jackson Case.

Note: This is a draft of an article that I began before Ian Watkins’s sentencing on December 18th. I have decided to keep the original draft as I wrote it, only adding a few updates where needed. This is a case that is continuing to unfold, as more victims come forward and new evidence continues to mount. My intention here, in comparing and contrasting the two cases, is not so much aimed at a comparison of Michael and Ian Watkins-because frankly, there is no comparison here except perhaps on the most superficial of levels–but, rather, to examine the hypocrisy of the media in how both of these cases have been covered. Or, in other words, to examine the question: When a case of a real celebrity pedophile comes up against the Michael Jackson allegations, how do they stack up in terms of media coverage and public perceptions?).

Just as the pop world was shaken by those allegations made against Michael Jackson in 1993 and 2003, the world of alternative rock has taken its own hit lately with the news coming out of the UK concerning Ian Watkins. Watkins was the lead singer and frontman for Lostprophets, a band that had enjoyed enormous commercial and critical success in the UK. In the US, the group is not as well known, though they did have a big hit here back in 2004 with a pretty decent song called Last Train Home.

Well, apparently this story has been ongoing for some time, at least since late 2012.  It’s just that the US media hadn’t taken much interest or notice until Watkins pleaded guilty to multiple sex crimes against children. The real kicker: At least two of these victims were babies, and one charge involves bestiality. Unfortunately, in covering this story I am going to have to link to some of the very same tabloids that, in the past, have trashed Michael’s name. I don’t normally make a practice of this, but I think in the case of this particular story, it is important since part of my objective is both in examining how some of these same outlets have covered the Watkins story (in comparison to the Michael Jackson case) and how, in some ways-albeit however small-we can take some comfort in the realization that at least part of the seeming witch hunt against Michael Jackson may have had more to do with the basic drive for celebrity scandal and ratings sensationalism than any personal vendetta against Michael Jackson in particular. The fact that it just happened to be Michael Jackson, of course-the celebrity they had long penned as “Wacko Jacko”- made for even greater copy. And the especial relish with which the media seemed to glorify in the accusations made against him is something else altogether, which I will examine briefly although it is a subject that would take many posts to really do justice to. 

The details of the Watkins case are perhaps well known by now, but for those needing a quick crash course, this video is a good place to start with just the facts, and without the sensationalism:

Before I ruffle any feathers, I will explain why I am even mentioning this monster in the same breath with Michael Jackson, a man who was only accused (but never found guilty) and for whom prosecutors did not have an iota of the evidence that is continuing to pile up against Watkins. From the looks of things, this isn’t a case that is going to be as easily swept away as what happened to R. Kelly a few years back, or Roman Polanski, or even Steven Tyler. The rock world, in particular, has a long and sordid history of looking the other way in regards to pedophilia, especially when the victims are female.  However, this clearly is not just another case of a guy nailing an underaged groupie, nor a case (such as that of Jerry Lee Lewis or Elvis) where a rock star may be unfairly judged for conduct in a time when the mores of the land were much different.

Ian Watkins, clearly, is in a league of his own, with only Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, and Gary Glitter perhaps, as his closest prototypes.

Ordinarily, in such circumstances, I would say let’s let the man have his day in court before convicting him, and certainly as an MJ fan, I know how the media loves these witch hunts. I would never wish that on another individual nor contribute to it, except for one fact: Since Watkins has pled guilty to these charges  it pretty much clinches the deal. There will be no trial; only a sentencing. He has as good as confessed to his crimes. Which means, in exchange for his confession, he will be agreeing to a prison sentence and a life for which the term “pedophile” will forever be attached to his name. (Update: On December 18th, Watkins was sentenced to 35 years on 13 counts).

Which, for sure, casts a whole different color on things.

Guit Or Innocence Makes No Difference To The Media. It All Adds Up To The Same Thing-Ratings And Profit

Guilt Or Innocence Makes No Difference To The Media. It All Adds Up To The Same Thing-Ratings And Profit

But what is disturbing is to see that, as far as the media is concerned, it doesn’t seem to make much difference whether the celebrity in question is guilty or innocent. The sliming that Watkins has taken in the press-particularly the British press-over the last few days is, while extreme, also deserved. Nevertheless, it’s scary to see that the witch hunt and hysteria that is currently unfolding against  Watkins is following a pattern not unlike that which we saw with Michael Jackson, despite the vast differences in the two cases and, most importantly, despite the fact that Michael was never convicted of any crime.

One reason for comparing them is because it’s interesting to see how a case of a truly guilty pedophile stacks up against that of a man only accused, and never found guilty. But another good reason may be the lessons we can learn from each.

Also, we have to remember that even if Watkins is guilty as sin, the witch hunt hysteria will inevitably mutate into its own brand of madness, with all manner of accusers coming out of the woodwork and wild stories circulating in the press-some of which may be true, but just as many that will be totally fabricated. Just as with Michael, we will probably have many attention seekers connected to this case who only want their fifteen minutes of fame. In such an atmosphere, it becomes impossible to sift truth from fiction. Right now, if you look at any mention of the story in The Daily Mail, there is a bullet that reads “Police have appealed for anyone ‘affected’ by Watkins case to make contact.” For cases involving private citizens, this may be an effective way to encourage real victims to come forward. But as we have seen before in regards to celebrity cases, it is a tactic that usually only results in misleads, hundreds of bogus claims, and wasted time that could have been better spent investigating real leads.

I would like to start with the things that most disturb me about the Watkins case because, inevitably, I know they are parallels that some will try to draw between this and the Michael Jackson cases, and it is best to debunk them here and now.

1: Before pleading guilty to these charges, Ian Watkins had a reputation as a humanitarian for children’s causes:

Ian Watkins was children’s ambassador for Kidney Wales Foundation. The Daily Mail, of course, has made a huge splash of how Watkins used his charitable acts to gain access to children. The article mentions, in turn, how the image of Watkins going bed to bed to visit sick boys and girls is reminiscent of similar images of Jimmy Savile.

With these kinds of images, it becomes all the harder to defend Michael simply on the grounds of his great humanitarian work or acts of kindness. That is the pity of it, because real pedophiles like Watkins and Savile have pretty much sullied the image of the selfless, giving celebrity for everyone. It becomes much easier to be cynical about so called do-gooder celebrities, even sadly, those who did as much good as Michael. It also reinforces what I have said many times, which is that we can’t depend on Michael’s good deeds or acts of charitable kindness to be his sole defense. Only the evidence itself-or lack thereof-can do that. Nothing else.

However, let’s also not be too quick to let the tabloid press off the hook on this one. I, for one, find it rather disturbing that The Daily Mirror and other tabloid outlets would elect to use a photo of Watkins posing with a 10-year-old kidney patient in order to drive home the sensationalism of their story.

Perhaps Watkins used his charitable work to gain access to children. But then again, we don’t know that. Soon-to-be-convicted pedophile or not, we can’t judge what was in his heart at the time. Maybe his intentions were good. Disturbing as the fact is, pedophiles-aside from the sexual aspect of it-often do genuinely care about children and their welfare. In their sick minds, they do not look upon sex as something that harms children. Thus, as crazy as it sounds, it is perfectly plausible for someone to be a pedophile and still be someone who perhaps genuinely cares about the plight of sick children. This girl (as far as we know) was not one of his victims, and for this young lady, this was probably one of the most thrilling moments of her life.  While the angle understandably sells copy, it also sullies the efforts of all who genuinely care about sick children and their efforts. Look, I’m not making excuses. I know this guy is one sick jerk. I’m just saying, though, let’s not be so quick to jump the gun in assuming he was looking to jump some baby’s bones every time he went into a hospital. Most likely, he was not. (True pedophiles are also quite adept at compartmentalizing, and evidently Watkins was someone who had succeeded for a long time in keeping his very sick private nature separate from his very humanitarian public one).

For Years, The Media Has Actually Tried To Use Michael's Humanitarian Work Against Him. Real Pedophiles Like Ian Watkins and Jimmy Savile, Also Known For Humanitarian Work, Have Only Succeded In Making Things Worse.

For Years, The Media Has Actually Tried To Use Michael’s Humanitarian Work Against Him. Real Pedophiles Like Ian Watkins and Jimmy Savile, Also Known For Humanitarian Work, Have Only Succeded In Making Things Worse.

But that isn’t the only parallel they will attempt to draw between Watkins and Michael. We also have:

Complicit parents: The Watkins story has understandably heightened, again, the idea of starstruck, complicit parents who will do anything for money-or to get close to someone famous. In the case of Michael Jackson, the prosecution tried to paint a picture of money hungry parents who would pimp out their children for any cost. In the Watkins case, it seemed more a case of starstruck groupies and fans who would do anything to keep their guy happy and satisfied. The latest stories involve how he would turn young fans into “Superfans” who would then aid and abet his every whim.

‘I’ve always said to the police, there’s hundreds of victims out there and you’re never going to find them because the mothers are in on it,’ Miss Majic said.

Indeed, the more stuff that is coming out about this guy, the more even the wildest stories and accusations about Michael seem tame stuff by comparison. For all the allegations of parents who supposedly accepted money and gifts in exchange for allowing Michael Jackson access to their children, there is nothing that remotely competes with Watkins’ record of having actual text messages and chatroom logs of mothers exchanging sexually explicit talk with Watkins and performing sexually explicit acts upon their own children (and my next question: When are those mothers going to be charged with sexual abuse?)

(Update: Those mothers have been convicted to 14 years and 17 years respectively).

But it still begs the question: How much of what we are reading about this case in the tabloids is  actually true? I get the distinct feeling that what we’re seeing in this case is truth mixed with a whole lot of hysteria, hype, and sensationalism. In that regard, there certainly isn’t much to separate this from what was done to Michael Jackson. Even the fact that Watkins has pled guilty doesn’t entirely make this an open and shut case. True, I don’t think you can begin to compare someone who has pled guilty to such heinous charges to someone who not only staunchly denied all charges made against him, but was ultimately acquitted in a court of law. But I know that, sure as I sit here and say no innocent person would plead guilty to such a thing, there are-as we know too well-just as many who will say no innocent man would have settled a case for millions of dollars. As Michael Jackson fans, we’ve all heard the argument too many times to count.

On this blog and elsewhere we have examined, many times, what might drive an innocent person to settle:

So…what are some reasons why an innocent person might plead guilty? Obviously, a guilty plea eliminates any need for a drawn out trial, in which every embarrassing and sordid detail of a person’s life is going to be put out there for public consumption. As we know, this was at least some of Michael’s justification for settling the Chandler case in ’93, along with, perhaps, being misguided by the advice of Johnnie Cochran. Yet the court documents of the settlement clearly state that it by no means an admission of guilt or wrongdoing.

On the other hand, a plea of guilty would seem to be just that-in most cases. However, there are  exceptions.  In most cases, as we know, a person pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence than might be imposed by a judge after a jury trial. In many cases, the accused may be poor, or may be a minority. In most cases, it occurs when the accused knows they are not likely to receive a fair trial, or cannot afford adequate defense. In other words, just as there are perfectly legit reasons why an innocent person may settle, there are also very valid reasons why an innocent person might plead guilty.

But in most cases, a guilty plea is a legal maneuver to avoid a potentially harsher sentence further down the road, or the possibility (and embarrassment) of further incrimination as details come out in trial.

Michael Didn't Want To Settle In '93. "I'm Ready To Go To Court Right Now!" He Said.

Michael Didn’t Want To Settle In ’93. “I’m Ready To Go To Court Right Now!” He Said, Adding “I Don’T Want To Delay It Even One Day!”

From the looks of things, it seems that with the evidence piling up against Ian Watkins, there wasn’t much choice but to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court. It would seem that his attorneys must have convinced him that his best bet was to plead guilty and hope that a judge would buy his “somewhat” defense that he was too out of his mind on crystal meth to know what he was doing.  With all the evidence, to deny he did the crimes would seem idiotic and pointless. It has been reported by some sources that Watkins told a female fan who asked why he pled guilty that he did it because he didn’t want to go to trial. On the surface, this might seem similar to those who excuse why Michael settled with the Chandler family, and even Michael himself said in the Bashir doc that “I didn’t want to do a long, drawn out thing like O.J., it just wouldn’t look right.” But that is where the comparison begins and ends. In the first place, the settlement did not prevent the Chandlers from continuing to pursue criminal charges, had they so desired, nor did it end the criminal investigation of the case, contrary to popular myth. Secondly, Watkins had to have known that he was facing a minimum of 30+ years. For someone already 36 years old, that is practically a life sentence. I don’t think that any innocent person in their right mind would willingly just give up that easily without a fight. He had to have known that a guilty verdict was going to be inevitable. And perhaps, in the end, he did it to save his family more embarrassment and humiliation (I do feel sorry for his mother, Elaine, who seems from all accounts a genuinely nice lady).

And that is where the biggest and most substantial difference between this case and anything ever levied against Michael Jackson comes into play.

For all the “talk” of “where there’s smoke there must be fire” we do know one thing for certain about the Michael Jackson allegations. Without exception, the allegations all came down to “he said, she said.” There was never one iota of actual, hardcore evidence-no photos, no video tapes, no child pornography (despite the fact that authorities searched over 66 computers taken from his home), no incriminating letters, no taped conversations; in fact, nothing but the flimsiest circumstantial evidence which, of course, haters have been trying unsuccessfully to twist into actual evidence for years. But the simple fact remains: None of it was enough to convince a jury.

Compare that to what has already surfaced on Ian Watkins:

The evidence against Watkins came from computers, laptops and mobile phones, which were seized by police. The court heard that he filmed and kept the episodes of abuse, which took place in locations including hotels in London and south Wales. Some of the evidence was deemed too extreme and distressing to report by media in court.

Details revealed in court today include (via Wales Online and BBC News):

    • A 17-minute long video involving Watkins and one of the women shot in a London hotel room showed Watkins performing a sex act on an 11-month-old baby. He claims he has no memory of the event. The video was shot in a hotel room in Shepherds Bush, London, the day after the release of the band’s final album ‘Weapons’. Earlier that day, he had appeared on BBC Radio 1. Prosecutors said that Watkins and the women subsequently exchanged emails about how they would not go “easy” on the child next time.
    • One laptop seized from Watkins’ home was password protected with the password “If***kids”, which was uncovered when it was sent to GCHQ to be cracked.
    • Watkins sent a text message to one of the women saying: “If you belong to me, so does your baby.” The court also heard how Watkins sent messages to to one of his co-defendants talking of how he wanted “to cross the line”. When she responded with “A summer of incest and child porn”, he replied: “Hell yes baby.” He then told her: “The sooner we start training her the better.
    • Police downloaded video footage showing one woman being encouraged to abuse her child via a conversation on Skype. In the footage, which takes the form of a split screen, Watkins is seen masturbating and refers to the woman and her baby as his “slave duo.” The child’s mother then refers to her baby as “your little **** toy.” At a later date she sent him a picture of herself having oral sex with the baby.
    • Prosecuting barrister Chris Clee QC told the court that drugs played a “significant part in his offending against children”. Police found meth, cocaine and GHB during their searches. Watkins also planned to “teach” the babies how to take drugs, the hearing was told. He also reportedly planned intoxicate one of his victims by blowing crystal-meth smoke into the child’s face at a Cardiff hotel. (In theory, keep in mind that this may not differ substantially from prosecution claims that Michael gave alcohol to minors. The presence of these drugs don’t necessarily prove anything, anymore than the presence of wine in MJ’s home “proved” anything).
    • Police also found box of camcorder cassettes which held recordings of sex acts with underage fans.
    • The court heard in October 2006, Watkins met up in a hotel with a 16-year-old girl from Boston, who he had met during during a Lostprophets concert. The prosecution said she had agreed to give her virginity to him and flew from Boston to New York and went to a hotel where he was staying, bringing with her a schoolgirl outfit he had asked her to dress in. They are then filmed having oral and full sex before he asks her: “Do you like being my underage slut.” He then urinated on her face and told her to ‘drink my p***’, the court heard.” (However, let’s note that this is not exactly atypical rock star behavior). 
    • In Oct 2008 he filmed himself having sex with another 16-year-old girl, who was also a Lostprophets fan. (Again, not admirable, but not particularly shocking for a rock star, either).
    • The singer also admitted possessing and making child porn as well as launching the plot to rape a baby.
  • Claiming his innocence, Watkins had told police during interviews he was being stalked by “a crazed fan” and other people had access to his computers. He also claimed he was the “victim of a malicious campaign”.

As you can see, just from the hearing alone, the hardcore police evidence against this guy is overwhelming. This list alone is the clearest, visible reason why we can in no way even begin to compare the two as far as guilt and innocence.

Even more telling, check out the sentencing comments given to Watkins and the two complicit mothers:

And perhaps the most important detail worth noting: If we are to believe the reports that are circulating now (which apparently are true as they seem to have been corroborated) those who suspected Watkins’s crimes went straight to the police with their claims-not, let’s note, to the tabloids or to civil attorneys. Of course, the tragedy of this story is that the police reportedly did nothing (for four years!) and only acted after receiving a drug tip-off.

It only goes to show, again, that while the world was so busy focusing attention on Michael Jackson, real pedophiles were getting away with their crimes right under authority noses. Somehow it doesn’t shock me in the least that British authorities should be quicker to act on a suspicion of drug use than a report of child abuse.

Perhaps we can make a case for disgruntled or scorned people with axes to grind. I really don’t think that ex girlfriend Joanne Majic is exactly a paragon of virtue in all of this. In fact, she is already spicing up her original claims, now stating that in addition to wanting to have sex with children, Watkins had also told her that he wanted to kill them! (For some reason, this puts me in mind of people like the LeMarques, who infamously made their stories about Michael Jackson more outlandish every time a tabloid was willing to pay a higher asking price). We also have to consider that Watkins’s level of fame-and thus the lucrative bargaining power of his name-is nowhere near that of Michael Jackson. Still, I think it is quite telling that even though these people could have sold their stories to the press, they chose instead to go straight to the authorities. Something that no accuser of Michael Jackson ever did. Note what I said. Ever. Instead, the authorities only became involved after intense media scrutiny that had been instigated, first in ’93 by tabloid stories, and in 2003 following Bashir’s documentary.  The people who brought accusations against Michael Jackson were only interested in how much money they could get for their stories.

Under Various Aliases Such As "Dr. Black" And "Marcel Jackson" Michael Did Have A Cyberspeace Double Life, Of Sorts...But It Was All Perfectly Adult, And Perfectly Legal

Under Various Aliases Such As “Dr. Black” And “Marcel Jackson” Michael Did Have A Cyberspeace Double Life, Of Sorts…But It Was All Perfectly Adult, And Perfectly Legal

I will just say that in my own searches on Ian Watkins over the past few days, I’ve stumbled upon some pretty disturbing stuff. However, I have also run across some websites that are now blowing out of proportion what appear to have been no more than some of Watkins’s legal adult porn activity. Yes, some of it may seem like pretty depraved stuff by some standards (I won’t link to them here as they are very graphic)but all the same, perfectly legal. In that regard, there is no difference between what is happening now and what both the prosecution and haters ever since have been attempting to spin in regards to Michael’s porn activity. However, there are still some major differences. For starters, even if some of Watkins’s porn activity falls under the realm of legal adult porn, that doesn’t change the fact that he still possessed a sh*%& lode of illegal child porn, much of it videos he had made himself. Secondly, either Michael was a hell of a lot more discreet with his activities, or had the good sense to not put himself out in the open by having sex chats on Skype and creating blatant profiles of himself on explicit porno sites. We know that he had some secret profiles/aliases that he used for adult cruising (Dr. Black and Dr. Marcel Jackson, apparently were two favorite profile names) but the difference, again, between Michael and someone like Ian Watkins is that, while Michael’s activities were very discreet and below the radar-as would be normal for any celebrity or even private citizen-Watkins seemed to take great pleasure in putting himself “out there” for the masses-namely, his female fans. The younger, evidently, the better. His egomania, in the end, may have been his biggest undoing. It also raises another interesting topic. While rock stars and (often underaged) groupies are as old as rock ‘n’roll itself, it seems that the internet and social media has very much shaken up the old way of doing things. After all, it used to be that girls either had to wait until their idols rolled into town, or be willing to take up the gypsy lifestyle to follow them on the road. And for a musician, it meant you had to be on the road and wait until after the show to get any action. But these days, all a guy needs, it seems, is a web cam and voile! It’s instant party time. And social media has also done more than just make it easier to have casual sex. It has also, in many cases, eradicated the barriers that once existed between celebrities and, well, us common folks. In other words, there was a time when a girl would have had to put in endless hours of waiting backstage and talking up some fat roadie to get to someone like Ian Watkins. Now, all she has to do is log in with a username. I would imagine Watkins certainly isn’t the only musician out there taking advantage of the new technology. But the dangers posed are the same as with all forms of cyber sex. It becomes much easier, online, to cross taboo lines and to seduce minors. I would wager that in Watkins’s case, it was a freedom that went to his head. Once he was addicted, there was no turning back. Judging from the evidence, he slid further and further into depravity. (And perhaps one big lesson Watkins should have learned: Don’t get tattoos if you plan on putting your depravity on the internet: They only make it easier to identify you!).

By contrast, check out what was actually found when police raided Neverland:

Excessive? Maybe. But all perfectly legal, and nothing of the incriminating caliber that police evidently found after one search of Watkins’s residence.

However, as harmless as most of Michael’s porn stash might have been, it still fell under the unforgiving scrutiny of a district attorney and prosecutor determined to find him guilty at all costs, and a media only too willing to distort the truth for ratings. As mentioned in the above link, lesbian themed issues became “gay porn.” Ron Zonen attempted to argue that “Barely Legal” was indicative of an interest in “child porn” despite the fact that “Barely Legal” is an adult mainstream porn publication whose models typically range from eighteen to twenty-three. The magazine is put out by Larry Flynt of “Hustler” fame. Heck, it doesn’t get much more mainstream than that! As might be expected, the title “Barely Legal” is meant to titillate and to appeal to the desire of most men to look at pretty models who are as young as the law allows. But here one would have to argue that if this alone was enough to qualify MJ as a pedophile, then by default they would have to brand most every normal, breathing man in the world as such!

If you still have doubts, you can check it out right here:

I am only bringing all of this up to note that, yes, there are some very marked and extreme differences between what was found in Michael Jackson’s home as opposed to the very hardcore and incriminating evidence found in the home of a confessed pedophile like Ian Watkins. However, the media has operated the same in both cases, distorting details and focusing on only the most salacious angles in order to generate headlines. The tragedy is that, despite the fact that one man was never proven guilty, and the other is clearly guilty by his own admission, the media coverage of both-if we compare this case to the way the Michael Jackson case was handled from 2003-2005- has been nearly identical in its extremity. The only difference is that, in Michael’s case, the stakes were much higher because he was a bigger name. And, perhaps, an easier target.  The media had been on a slow campaign to bring him down for years. It had its roots going all the way back to those rumors of the mid-80′s about hyperbaric chambers and Elephant Man bones, and perhaps even earlier, all the way back to when he was first said to be a 40-year-old midget posing as a child. It is interesting now to see the media back pedaling as it scrambles for ways to brand Ian Watkins- a critically acclaimed and award winning artist up until late 2012-a “weirdo” and “freak.” You can see the same campaign in action (Note how every photo of him that is used in conjunction with these stories is one intended to make him look demonic or demented). The crucial difference, of course, is that the media had been doing this to Michael for years. No media outlet was poking fun at Ian Watkins until he became known as “that baby fu*%$er.”

On the other hand, being accused of child molestation did not cause the media feeding frenzy and witch hunt mentality that sprung up against Michael Jackson. It merely accelerated it.  In some ways, the allegations, it seems, became more the excuse than the reason. If you need proof, you don’t have to look any further than this Good Morning Britain clip promoting the Bad album in 1987, six full years before any sexual allegations were made against him:

As I have said many times before, I was not a huge Michael Jackson fan in the late 80′s and early 90′s. I was more of a rock purist in those days, more apt to be listening to Warrior Soul than Dangerous. Thus, I know from the inside circle how many of that faction felt about Michael Jackson in the wake of the sex scandal allegations. There was a kind of celebration in it; a joy in seeing this self-righteous do-gooder toppled from his pretentious throne. After all, while most rockers were always getting fingers pointed at them as the dregs of the earth-responsible for every ill of society-people like Michael Jackson were held up as exemplary role models and paragons of virtue. Such hasty generalization judgments were not fair to either party, and in many crucial ways I realize that now. But it was what it was. For many, this guy Michael Jackson was just a little too much to stomach.  Was jealousy part of it? I think so. Jealousy, racism, and in some ways, just plain old musical, macho snobbery-sadly, the very thing that Michael had been trying to tear down for years. But it seemed sometimes that the harder he tried to tear down those walls, the more resistance and resentment he generated.

It Sometimes Seemed That The More He Tried To Break Down The Walls Of Resistance, The More He Was Resented

It Sometimes Seemed That The More He Tried To Break Down The Walls Of Resistance, The More He Was Resented

It seemed, then, that a blow of vengeance had been struck in the never ending pop vs. rock war. This is where you have bands like Kiss and rockers like Gene Simmons suddenly strutting about like bantam roosters, mocking Michael Jackson while striking their own phony, souped up macho poses and bragging about  how “real men” are supposed to act and behave. I have to wonder, now that the ball has landed squarely back in the rockers’ court, how the community will react to this one. Is Gene Simmons going to rush to this guy’s defense, since their sexual tastes seem oddly similar? I am not exaggerating; there is an actual sex video of Simmons and a model who is dressed to look like a 14-year-old, not unlike some of the very tapes allegedly made by Watkins. (There has been some debate, however, as to whether the tape was simply a publicity stunt for Frank’s Energy Drink):,0,2046708.story

Well, anyone who is interested and has a strong stomach can judge for themselves, since the video is still available on many soft porn sites as well as any website that loves to slag on ugly, past their prime rockers who can’t keep it zipped!

Is Howard Stern going to trash this guy, like he did Michael, or make him into some kind of underdog hero? Will Diane Dimond plan to write any books on Ian Watkins, warning his female fans to “Be Careful” of who they love? Will Maureen Orth come on TV and blast what a depraved man he is? And will there be someone starting up a Facebook page to support Ian Watkins’s many victims? Or is that kind of energy, devotion, and dogged, loyal support only saved for the presumed “victims” of Michael Jackson?

The saddest thing of all is that, when the news of those allegations broke, no one really took the time to analyze whether Michael was guilty or not. No one cared. We were all too busy hoping he was guilty to ever consider, for a moment, that maybe he wasn’t. Somehow we needed Michael to be guilty, as if his guilt would assuage something in our own souls. We pointed fingers at “the freak” because it was easier than examining the poison in our own minds and hearts that would lead us to so easily crucify another human being.

As has been pointed out many times, we are really not that far removed from our barbaric Roman ancestors, nor our ancestors of the Spanish Inquisition. The three hundred years that separates us from the Salem witch trials is just the blink of an eye. Our reasoning and judgment is no more advanced, nor less flawed; our propensity for blood no less hot.

In 2004, the media seized upon leaked transcripts from a pre-trial grand jury hearing and used this leaked information to print many false and salacious details concerning Michael Jackson’s case.

The leak prompted this video response, posted on Michael’s web site at the time, MJJSource. com:

Yet this plea did not stop media outlets from running with those details, even though none of it at the time had been cross examined. In this clip, we can see the media’s reaction to Michael’s attempt to defend himself against the information being reported in those leaked transcripts:

As heinous as most of the current details sound in the Ian Watkins case-and even despite his guilty plea-we also have to remember that most of these details are coming to us now filtered through the same means and through the same lenses as the information we were receiving on much of  the Michael Jackson case throughout 2004. Once again, what we are reading in mainstream media, in medialoid and tabloid publications are details leaked from a hearing. Once again, we have to ask the question: How much of what we are hearing is the real version of what happened? How much is being fabricated? How much exaggerated? Do we even know?

Or, once again, are we going to be content to be mere sideline spectators to the circus?

At this point you might be asking, Why should we even care, if Watkins is so obviously guilty? I can answer that one quite simply.

In 2003, when I first started reading and hearing the media reports that Michael Jackson was in trouble-again!-my immediate reaction was conditioned to his guilt. Not that I had any strong emotions about it one way or the other. But I believed he was “most likely” guilty, just as I believed-along with 99% of America-that O.J. was “most likely” guilty of murdering Nicole Simpson. I did not realize for a long time that media conditioning had everything to do with how I perceived what I knew-or thought I knew-about the case. We live in a society that has become conditioned to celebrity scandal. We probably know more about Kennedy’s exploits with Marilyn Monroe than any action he ever took in the oval office. We’ve been through everything from Watergate to the Lewinsky affair. We’ve seen a beloved American football hero become a murderer, and every day we are bombarded with news of the latest celebrity scandal. And in most cases, the scandals turn out to be true, or at least partially true, reminding us that we are all only human and that there are no real heroes; no Supermen or Wonder Women; no true role models to be had. Even our presidents, the highest leaders in the land, are only flawed and vulnerable human beings like ourselves, as apt to be victims of the press as celebrated by it.

In such increasingly cynical times,  it becomes much easier to assume guilt than to presume innocence, or even benefit of the doubt. It also becomes much easier to be part of the feeding frenzy. We are fascinated by the downfall of celebrities and people in high places. I don’t think that is going to change anytime soon. It seems to be part of our genetic encoding. Why do you think the great tragedies of the classical stage were always about the fall of a hero? However, since we are not animals but human beings, we have the ability to rise above our primal instincts-or should.  Or, in other words, just because a train wreck happens doesn’t mean we have to look.

However, in addition to our apparent inbred fascination with the downfall of celebrities and the never ceasing interest in the sordid details of their lives-an interest that continues to feed the tabloid industry to the tune of millions a year in revenue-there is an especial venom that is held for that most heinous of crimes, and that is crimes committed against children. It doesn’t matter how much good the person may have accomplished in the past. Once they wear the label of child molestor, they are reviled human beings. People like Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, and now Ian Watkins are not villified without justification. However, there is also something more than a bit disturbing at how quick people are to browbeat and postulate under the anonymity of the internet. I noticed some interesting trends as I was researching this piece. Many Youtube videos of Lostprophets have now had comments totally disabled. Of the ones that are still allowing comments, it is virtually impossible to find one comment now that actually focuses on the music. Instead, it is page after page of “Rot in jail, baby fu*%er” and such like. Sadly, it reminds me of those days eight years ago when almost everyone was 100% sure that Michael Jackson had molested kids, and that only his most blind, deranged fans could possibly think he was innocent.

Up until a few days ago, I might have said things haven’t changed much. But now, after seeing the absolute deluge of hate and venom being directed at Watkins, I am not so sure. In the wake of his guilty plea, he has quickly lost whatever bastion of fan support he had left. No one, it seems, can defend this guy because frankly, there is not much to defend. While I am sure that Watkins may still have some die hard supporters, their almost zero presence on the internet is very telling (in fact, quite the opposite; it was apparently several fans who, having discovered much of this disturbing info, were attempting to blow the whistle to authorities).

This proves something very fundamental about human nature, and disproves the long-cherished notion held by Michael Jackson haters that fans only continue to support Michael simply because they are star-struck fans. Blind devotion can only go so far. In the face of mounting and undeniable evidence that a heinous crime has taken place, most fans are going to jump ship. Public support for Ian Watkins has been all but completely withdrawn. Even his parents have made no attempt to deny his guilt; instead, they have only expressed their shock and their hope that, at some future point, his image can be rehabilitated somewhat.

In these clips, we see how even diehard rock fans have no sympathy for Ian Watkins (and if you watch none of the rest, you at least have to watch the third one; that girl is a hoot!).

And these are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. All of these reactions are indicative of an audience and a fanbase reething in turmoil, shock, and disgust.

Which brings me back to Michael.

One thing that began to slowly change my mind about Michael when I began researching him in 2009 was the ultimate love, devotion, and continued support of his fans. I knew that alone wasn’t enough to “prove” his innocence, of course. But it was enough to make me think, There must surely be a reason why so many continue to love this man, despite everything. You could say I was impressed first by love, and later won over by what I came to know through my own research. While I do believe there is validity to the adage that one can’t truly know unless they were there, the simple truth is that, after two criminal investigations and over ten years’ worth of FBI surveillance, nothing was ever found on Michael Jackson that could unequivocally link him to any crime against a minor.

Perhaps, every once in awhile, it takes the vileness of the truly guilty for us to appreciate the truly innocent.

Of course, Ian Watkins was not a solo act, but a member of a band. The scandal, whether fairly or not, has enveloped and tainted them as well. In the last few days, I have also seen many vile comments that have not just attacked Watkins personally, but the entire band. Inevitably, they have had to make their own decision to move on and to distance themselves from their former bandmate:

Earlier this week, we learned that the allegations of child sexual abuse against Ian were true, and that he would not be contesting them in court. Until then, we found them extremely difficult to believe and had hoped it was all a mistake. Sadly, the true extent of his appalling behaviour is now impossible to deny.

Many of you understandably want to know if we knew what Ian was doing. To be clear: We did not. We knew that Ian was a difficult character. Our personal relationships with him had deteriorated in recent years to a point that working together was a constant, miserable challenge. But despite his battles with drugs, his egotistic behaviour, and the resulting fractures and frustrations within our band, we never imagined him capable of behaviour of the type he has now admitted.

We are heartbroken, angry, and disgusted at what has been revealed. This is something that will haunt us for the rest of our lives. Being in a band has always been a labour of love and a platform to inspire people, not to take advantage of them. It’s still hard to believe this is happening and that someone we were once so close to has destroyed so many lives, lying every step of the way.
Our hearts go out to Ian’s family, the fans and friends he betrayed, and most importantly, the victims of his crimes and others like them. We hope for justice, but also that Ian will truly take responsibility for what he’s done. We would urge any other victims to contact the authorities.

Jamie, Lee, Luke, Mike and Stu


Wow, that’s cold. But again, in the face of undeniable guilt, a necessary move if they are to have any hope of moving forward with their own careers-and to avoid any charges of being complicit in Watkins’s crimes.

Jennifer Batten, Who Came To Michael's Aid Again To Shut Up Unfounded Rumors From Gene Simmons. Michael's Band Mates have Remained Steadfast And Loyal.

Jennifer Batten, Who Came To Michael’s Aid Again To Shut Up Unfounded Rumors From Gene Simmons. Michael’s Band Mates have Remained Steadfast And Loyal.

But this raises another interesting question, and another important difference between Watkins and Jackson.  Michael was a solo act, but what if he had been a member of a band? Would his bandmates have stayed loyal to him through his toughest times, or would they have deserted him? The closest equivalent we have are the men and women who made up his touring entourage-the singers, dancers, and musicians who toured with him for years. We know that most of these people remained incredibly loyal, many of them staying with him for more than three decades. What’s more, these people have remained some of his most ardent defenders.

As we can see already from what is happening to Lostprophets, no one in entertainment wants to be associated with a known child molestor. It simply isn’t good business. I think much of the loyalty that Michael inspired in his co-workers came from the generally accepted truth, and faith, among them that he was an innocent man. Perhaps that kind of loyalty doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly speaks volumes.

Still, the Ian Watkins case does raise some interesting questions. It is interesting to see what happens when fan loyalty is truly put to the test, or when that loyalty comes up against undeniable truths. I have often wondered how very different things might have been IF-and only saying IF-that jury had come back with a guilty verdict in 2005 (or even a partially guilty verdict; after all, let’s not forget he was charged with fourteen counts). This isn’t even a question of guilt or innocence. But sometimes, yes, juries have reached some pretty questionable decisions. So what if Michael, instead of being acquitted, had become a convicted felon in 2005? I still believe he would have had fans willing to stick by him, convinced he had been unfairly framed and railroaded. I have no doubt. But for sure, it would have been much harder to defend Michael Jackson as a  convicted felon-and the label is one he would have never shaken off.

We can say that, thankfully, it never came to that, and as a result, his legacy is much different from what it might have been. But there is a downside. I’m sure that in 2005, most fans were ecstatic, thinking this was only the beginning for Michael, that he would be able to put all of this behind him and move on with his life.

But sadly, as we know now, his life had less than four years to play out. Less than four years in which to enjoy the freedom he had fought so hard for. The verdict bought him four more years of life and four more years to enjoy with his children. But the damage was irreparable.

Michael Walked Away From The 2005 Trial A Free Man. But The Damage Done To Him Was Irreperable.

Michael Walked Away From The 2005 Trial A Free Man. But The Damage Done To Him Was Irreperable.

Recently, I was pretty much confined to the house for several evenings due to some unseasonably nasty weather. I had to type out comments for student presentations, a very tedious task. To alleviate some of the boredom, I played Youtube videos in the background of the Michael Jackson 2005 trial. It was interesting, to say the least, to go back to those times from eight years ago and re-live the witch hunt again as it unfolded. It struck me anew how appalling it was that Michael was already treated like a convicted criminal in the media, before the trial had even begun. Journalists routinely (and without thought) tossed around adjectives like “sick” and “monster” with no thought as to whether they were actually true. No wonder the public believed he was guilty! It is sad that if we stop to consider the difference between how the Jackson and Watkins cases have played out in the media, we realize quickly enough that there is no difference in how the two cases were covered, or in the public perception of the individual that was created by the coverage. Other than the fact that one will go to prison, and one walked away a free man; one has pled guilty and admitted his crimes; the other fought with every last breath he had to proclaim his innocence; one has a mountain of evidence against him that is still growing in size as I type this; the other, none but somebody’s word against his.

One guilty and one innocent. But you would never know that from the headlines. However, I do think recent cases such as Sandusky, Savile and Watkins have had some benefit in educating the public of how true pedophiles operate. In every case, their described acts, their number of victims, and the sheer depravity with which they have carried out their acts makes everything Michael was ever accused of seem petty in comparison. Look, I’m not saying one case of molestation is any more horrific than another-if  Michael had been guilty. But rather than inviting comparisons, maybe it’s time that some take a good, long, hard look at the facts and realize that Michael Jackson was never the monster they tried to make him out to be. Ten years’ worth of FBI files, thousands of dollars invested in tracking down every possible, would-be victim all over the world, a search that scanned 60+ computer hard drives, and every possible scrap of book and paper he owned, and a costly trial that dragged on for nearly five months all yielded nothing. I know there are some conspiracy theorists who will try to argue till their dying day that he somehow “got away” with the crime of the century. Diane Dimond has made it her life’s mission. Martin Bashir piggybacked off it all the way to a career at MSNBC (although karma did finally catch up to him in backhanded kind of way, after his remarks about Sarah Palin). But let’s face it. The single ingredient that trips up most pedophiles is their seeming inability to control their need to document their conquests. That all of the searches carried out against Michael yielded not one shred of hard evidence-not one incriminating photo, video tape, “love letter,” text, or sex chat, should say everything. No matter how much some might want to cling to their suspicions, without the evidence, there is nothing.

Keeping that in mind, here is what a recent story on the Ian Watkins investigation revealed:

Authorities hacked into Watkin’s hard drive and discovered he had child abuse videos. He had encrypted his computer but expert hackers were able to access the computer and see his stash. Some of the videos were made by Watkins himself.

When fans love to point out that searches of the hard drives in all 66 of the computers seized from Michael’s house yielded nothing illegal, detractors and the cynical love just as much to point out the fact that Michael could have easily, at any time, discarded of any such incriminating evidence before the raid. But this excuse simply doesn’t hold up. Authorities not only have the means to hack into computers and to bypass difficult encryption codes, but they can also determine if hard drives have been erased, a fact that surely would have been mentioned if these examinations had yielded a suspicious number of deleted files.  In fact, it is very likely that both Michael’s phone and computer activities had been tracked by the FBI for years. Perhaps he was very clever, but if we are to judge by the cases of actual convicted pedophiles, he would have had to have been truly one of the most clever and strange pedophiles in history, one who apparently documented nothing, kept nothing, and left no trail whatsoever. Such behavior is very unlikely, and very uncharacteristic of serial pedophiles.

There was nothing then, and nothing now. So why the dogged determination to keep trying to pin that label on him?

Ian Watkins is a short-term villain right now because the story is fresh, and because it’s easy to take potshots at such a heinous person. But in the end, he’s simply not important enough for his case to have much long-term impact. He will go to prison, and if he survives it long enough, he’ll be forgotten.

Michael Jackson remains the “Big One” that so many pinned their hopes on, not only a zealous prosecutor but many journalists who hoped to become celebrities themselves by riding on the coattails of this case. If any celebrity was going to take that fall, we somehow needed it to be him. Apparently, some still do. The evidence and resultant media stories that are circulating now about Ian Watkins was what Sneddon and company so desperately wanted to see in the Michael Jackson case.  Sneddon wanted to see that case publicized as one with far reaching, global repercussions;hence his determination to search out “victims” all over the world.

I have to admit that with the Watkins case, some of the justification for seeking out victims throughout the world has started to make a little more sense. It’s easy to simply say that Sneddon was so desperate to find victims that he went scouting all over the globe for them. It’s easy to make him look like one very desperate, mustache-twirling villain because of this. However, celebrity pedophile cases do have far more global impact than ordinary cases, especially in the case of touring musicians who have far more opportunity than ordinary citizens to carry out their crimes in other countries.  Michael Jackson, for sure, would have had had even more opportunity than someone like Ian Watkins to carry out many crimes against children in foreign countries-had he been so inclined. But here is where it gets interesting. You see, while the evidence against Watkins continues to mount, Sneddon’s dogged, worldwide search yielded for him little more fruit than the already discredited, tabloid tales of the LeMarqueses and the Quindoys:

In other words, he found nothing.

So now I am going to speak for both Tom Sneddon and the media. It must be frustrating indeed when the one you wanted/needed so badly to be the horrible villain is maybe not the world’s biggest pop star and eccentric after all, but rather, some tattooed rocker who, until late last year, was hardly distinguishable from the pack. So “the devil,” it turns out, is not the “bleached pedo freak with the ferris wheel in his back yard” but, just maybe, really is the guy with all the tattoos and piercings. Who woulda thunk it! Again, it will be interesting to see if people like Gene Simmons are as eager to speak out on this one, or will they simply cloak it all in a conspiracy of silence?


Some will not be content until they’ve stripped him, a bare corpse, and have laid him upon the altar fire of our sins. Only then will their own self righteous vendettas be served.

As for the driving need to make Michael Jackson the “sick, depraved one” death has changed the playing field only but a little. Some will say enough is enough. Let the man rest in peace. Others, however,  will not be content until they’ve stripped him, a bare corpse, and have laid him upon the altar fire of our sins. Only then will their own self righteous vendettas be served.

Once again, a real celebrity pedophile case has only proved to highlight all of the reasons why a Santa Barbara jury in 2005 made the unanimous decision to let Michael Jackson walk out of that court room as a free man. Media hype and zealous prosecutors can only accomplish so much. Hellbent journalists and screeching legal analysts can work over time to paint a case with all the colorful brush strokes they want.

But in the end, it all has to come down to the evidence.

Unfortunately for the many victims of Ian Watkins, but perhaps fortunately for those of us who care about Michael Jackson and his legacy, that is where any comparison between the two takes a widely divergent path to a very different end.

Despite any short-term similarity in the form of media sensationalism, I think that the long term effect is going to prove much different. If there is any silver lining to take from these recent cases, it is in revealing just how vastly different the Michael Jackson case was, both in terms of evidence and the motivating factors behind it.

It is, quite simply, the difference between guilt and innocence. How much does either matter? Sadly, I think that if it’s a question that comes down to the media desire for ratings and profit, not at all.

But as far as how history will judge Michael Jackson, it is going to be very hard indeed to justify what was done to him when stacked up against cases as damning as this. Ian Watkins’s name is destined to be a footnote to musical history, but one that will forever cast a long and infamous shadow over the many victims he hurt.

Michael Jackson, on the other hand, a name that will shine on forever for the musical joy he brought, may bear the brunt of an unfair tarnishment but I think that, in time, cases such as Sandusky, Savile, and Watkins will only help to prove just how little comparison there actually is.

UPDATE 12/28/2013: On a similar note, check out the latest posting on Vindicating Michael 2.0 comparing Michael’s case to that of R. Kelly. You can see that once again again, it comes down to a matter of having actual evidence. In keeping with the true nature of a serial pedophile, Kelly could not resist the urge to document his activities, thus resulting in his being charged. Shockingly, he was still acquitted-and never received half the public damnation that Michael has!

Comments: 43 Comments

Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 6 (Parody Videos From Early 90′s Shed Interesting Light)

Michael's Image By The Early 90's Had Become Increasingly Quirky, Whimsical, Child-like...and More Than a Little Quixotic. Could This Have Been The Combination That, Ultimately, Did Him In?

Michael’s Image By The Early 90′s Had Become Increasingly Quirky, Whimsical, Child-like…and More Than a Little Quixotic. Could This Have Been The Combination That, Ultimately, Did Him In?

I made an interesting find the other day that I think sheds even more light on a subject that I have been addressing in the last few installments of this series. I have been attempting to show that there were dark forces at work to paint Michael as a child molestor long before the Chandler allegations. Why this is important to understand is because it was these circumstances that helped plant the seed in the minds of people like Evan Chandler to fabricate a false claim of molestation. Once that wheel had been put into motion, we have the direct causal chain of events that have led us all the way up to Wade Robson’s allegations.

The Chandler allegations became public in August of 1993. Many will say that, up until that point, Michael’s career was riding high, untainted by any allegations of child abuse. In fact, February of 1993 is often pinpointed as the pinnacle of Michael Jackson’s solo career. Dangerous was still riding high on the charts. The Dangerous tour was an unprecedented success. He had just come off from doing the first major Superbowl half-time show, which had been a ratings smash. His Oprah interview had also garnered record ratings. And it was during that month that he was bestowed. a Grammy Living Legend Award.

But it was also in this same month-February 06, 1993-that the Fox network show “In Living Color” dedicated several parody segments to Michael Jackson and The Jacksons. The results were…well, let’t just say, interesting.

For those who don’t remember, In Living Color was a hit show on the Fox network in the early 90′s that featured various comedy skits per episode. It was written and produced by Keenen and Damon Wayens. Many performers who went on to be big names got their initial start on the series, including Jim Carrey and Jamie Foxx. Setting a trend that has continued ever since, the show was notorious for taking pot shots at celebrities and pop culture. Michael Jackson, as might be guessed, was no exception to this.

I do have to say that, as an MJ fan, I nevertheless have a sense of humor. I don’t feel guilty about laughing at parodies that were funny and not too mean-spirited. I’ve laughed at jokes about Michael’s vocal and dancing tics, his “Hee hees;” his “Shamones” and “Woo hoo’s.” That sort of thing has never bothered me. But some are just cruel and nasty and not worth mentioning.

So why, might you ask, am I showcasing these? Especially on a positive site dedicated to honoring him?

For one simple reason, and an important one since time and distance has a way of dulling our memories. These parodies are like little time capsules, allowing us to accurately gauge what the national mood was towards Michael Jackson at any given time. By the early 90′s, Michael Jackson was a bonafide, global superstar. No doubt about that. But as these videos indicate, this was also a transitional time when Michael had gone from being untouchably cool, to someone that it was “okay” to laugh at. This turning point had been ongoing since at least the late 80′s. By 1993, it seems, anything about him was fair game for comedians and joke writers.

The first clip is very typical of the kind of MJ humor that had become so prevalent by the early 90′s. The only real problem I have with this one is that I don’t like the idea of using Michael’s vitiligo-a disease he couldn’t help-as a source of amusement. But we have to also remember that this was a time when we still had many unanswered questions about his changing appearance. As we see here, by February of 1993, the idea that Michael had purposely lightened his skin to be “white”-the idea that he was someone who was somehow confused about his identity-had become firmly entrenched in the public consciousness by this time. Sadly, it was going to take a lot more than a confession on Oprah to undo the damage-in fact, we are still seeing the repercussions of it to this day, when news stories still refer to his “alleged” skin disease and still act as if the whole notion of vitiligo is up for debate.

But that was not the only parody clip featured in that particular broadcast. The one I think is really worth looking at is this one, entitled “Home Alone With Michael Jackson.”

I will warn you that this clip will probably make you angry. But if you can stomach it, it’s worth watching. I want you to keep in mind that this clip was from FEBRUARY, 1993-a full six months BEFORE any allegations would be made against Michael Jackson. Yet it is very clear from the context of this clip that the foundation was already well in place. He was already being branded, at the very least, as a kind of creepy predator whose relationships with kids like Macaulay Culkin were already being held to scrutiny. If you pay close attention to the innuendo that is being hinted at between the lines in this clip, it is downright disgusting-especially given that this was supposed to be humorous! (Not to mention, I have yet to see what was remotely humorous about that horrific Pepsi accident, but here we see it mocked yet again).

Most Of The Jokes And Potshots In The Early 90's Focused On Michael And Macauley Culkin. Ironically, Culkin Has Remained One Of Michael's Staunchest Defenders, Insisting Nothing Ever Happened. Who Knew Then That An Unknown Dentist Was Probably Taking Notes?

Most Of The Jokes And Potshots In The Early 90′s Focused On Michael And Macaulay Culkin. Ironically, Culkin Has Remained One Of Michael’s Staunchest Defenders, Insisting Nothing Ever Happened. Who Knew Then That An Unknown Dentist Was Probably Taking Notes?

At the :30 second mark, there is even a passing reference where the kid who is supposed to be Macaulay says, “What happens if my career falls apart? Are you gonna dump me like Webster?” Clearly this is meant to refer to the mistaken idea some had that all of Michael’s special “friends” were dumped by a certain age. It also tells us, quite clearly, that a lot of these notions of Michael as a child predator were already the stuff of jokes by as early as February of 1993. And, let’s not forget that it was as early as 1992 when Bill Wyman made his infamous remark about Michael and “intense relationships with nine-year-old boys.”

What these things reveal to us is interesting, especially since it would only be a mere six months after the broadcast of this clip that Michael would be accused of molestation for real. But was this a case of an innocent person whose actions were simply misconstrued and misunderstood? Could it be possible that people like Evan Chandler then schemed to use this mindset against Michael as a way of framing him?

I would say not only is it possible, but that the timing of the allegations makes it downright fishy.

And here is something else to consider: If parodies like this were already the norm, wouldn’t it stand to reason that Michael was already well aware that his public behavior with kids was already under scrutiny? Even if, granted, the jokes still stemmed more more Michael’s perceived eccentricities than perceived crimes, it is nevertheless quite clear that Michael was already walking a very fragile tightrope. Wouldn’t this have served to make him even more cautious, rather than less so?

It’s the same logic that is so hard to explain away when people insist that he molested Gavin Arvizo, despite the fact that the alleged “molestation” would have occurred during the time that he was actually under investigation for molesting Gavin. Confused? I thought so. Well, you’re not alone!

Are we supposed to believe that Michael apparently only got turned on and gave in to his “dark urges” during times when he was under the most intense scrutiny?

What I do believe is that, before any actual allegations were made, Michael was still driven by an idealistic sense that, ultimately, all jokes aside, his message would become clear and his idealistic good intentions would win out. The Chandler allegations forever tainted that belief (later, the Arvizo allegations would crush it completely).

Parodies like these In Living Color skits were really the result of a lot of things coming to a head. If Michael Jackson in 1993 was the biggest star in the world, it also made him a prime target. America has always had a healthy and perverse aversion to allowing its heroes to get too big. And, let’s face it, in a country where even the president-the highest official in the land-can be the butt of Saturday Night Live jokes, nothing is sacred. Part of Michael’s fault was his idealistic belief that he could somehow sell the idea of himself as a real life Peter Pan. As to just how much of that myth was reality is something I will explore in future installments. But what we see by early 1993 is that, clearly, the myth had already begun to backfire on him.

And what is also further cemented is the fact that Michael was already being molded into a suspect, long before any accusations of wrongdoing on his part were ever made. Between the fact that Victor Gutierrez had been on his campaign since at least 1986, and that the Lemarqueses had tried to sell a story to the tabloids as early as 1992, and that this In Living Color skit was broadcast a full six months prior to any actual allegations, it is evident that there was a growing conspiracy to cast him as a pedophile. Now throw into the mix a whole, upcoming cast of characters only too willing to take advantage of the situation, and you have the recipe for the perfect storm-or the perfect crime that never was.

Comments: 9 Comments

Wade Robson: What the Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 5

Were Michael's Relationships With Children Misunderstood...or Misinterpreted By Dirty Minds?

Were Michael’s Relationships With Children Misunderstood…or Misinterpreted By Dirty Minds?

In Part 4. I had established that the effort to somehow pin the pedophile label on Michael-and to perhaps incite some sort of criminal/extortion charge against him as a result- actually had its roots much earlier than the Chandler case. It’s important to understand that what happened in the Chandler case was actually an effect of this effort, not a cause.

The star players in this early effort were names that have all recently come to light again, conveniently just as Wade Robson’s allegations were making their splash. In addition to Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA associate who was conducting his own obsessed campaign during this time to “prove” Michael as “one of us” there was also a set of disgruntled ex-employees-the LeMarques, the Quindoys, and a bit later, Blanca Francia and those who comprised The Neverland 5, a group of employees who claimed they were wrongfully terminated because of what they knew-Ralph Chacon,  Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall, Sandy Domz, and Adrian MacManus. All of these employees had serious credibility issues, and reasons for their termination that were much more logical (and damning) than what they claimed to know. Now, throw into that mix an ambitious tabloid reporter and an ex-porn star turned PI, and you have the perfect recipe. Whatever suspicions you may think you have regarding Michael Jackson’s “conduct” with children, almost all of them can be traced in some form or another to these individuals (with later players like the Chandlers, Arvizos, Tom Sneddon, and now Wade Robson being mere offshoots). And their seeds were being planted as early as 1989, when Phillip and Stella Lemarque went to work at Neverland.

This raises an interesting question, especially since it was about this time that Victor Gutierrez had really begun in earnest to pursue his own “investigation.” Throughout the years, Michael’s Neverland Ranch had a revolving door of employees, totaling, no doubt, in the hundreds. It took many hands, after all, to keep such a place running efficiently. Of those hundreds, only a small handful of highly questionable individuals have ever come forward to smear their boss’s name, and they are the same ones whose names appear over and over in any scandalous or dirty story about the “secrets of Neverland” or whatever salacious headline is being used. Many of these have also conveniently found themselves a new shot at fame-and infamy-since Wade Robson’s allegations broke. Already many of these same ex-employees have gotten a second wind at fame, and a new chance at recycling their same old lies to the media.

Adrian MacManus, enjoying her second shot at fame, and selling her BS story to a gullible public

Adrian MacManus, enjoying her second shot at fame, and selling her BS story to a gullible public

Adrian MacManus, in particular, seems to be gloating over her second shot in the limelight.

Were these people genuine employees, or hired plants? Before you are quick to dismiss this idea as fan paranoia, consider that tabloids like The National Enquirer have made it an open secret for years that they are willing to pay top dollar to employees who will rat out their celebrity bosses.

enquiring minds

This practice, in turn, has led to an entire business of “posers” who go to work for celebrities with no intentions other than to sell them out for a price. And, no doubt, these stories can be exaggerated or even downright fabricated in some instances. It’s not as if the tabloids are going to invest too much effort into fact checking a story. As long as they can cloak a story with the ever-convenient tag of, “An inside source claims” they are pretty much covered.

As to whether people like the LeMarqueses and the Quindoys were real employees who simply turned coat after the fact, or were plants from the beginning, I can’t say. But for sure, it’s a possibility worth keeping in mind. Even if they were plants, it would be hard to say if they were merely grifters looking for a tabloid payout down the road, or a part of something far more sinister-a concentrated and organized plan to frame Michael Jackson as a pedophile and sex offender.

The causal chain of how all of these events and names came together, as well as the cast of players, is indeed fascinating stuff, and was explained in explicit detail in this Frontline documentary from Richard Ben Cramer. I cannot embed the video here, but if you have never seen it, it is worth clicking this link and watching it in its entirety:

Whether you are resuming reading this post after clicking on this video, or saving it for later, I want you to note what Gary Morgan and Kevin Smith of “Splash News” have to say beginning at around 24:28.

“After the frenzy at the beginning the police and Jackson’s people successfully plugged all leaks – there was nothing more coming out.  Jackson’s people were starting to win in a propaganda war, holding conferences, coming out with the tapes. But the public was still curious – What was going on? So what we were looking for was a buy-up. That’s what you want. You want graphic inside details what it was like at the ranch, how he behaves with children..”

The Quidoys on Geraldo

The Quindoys on Geraldo

Something interesting emerges here about the Quindoys, the Manilia couple who demanded as much as $900,000 to spill their “secrets” about Michael’s relationships with children at Neverland Ranch. It turns out, they had a previous “tell all” contract with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, for the sum of $25,000. But this contract pre-dated the Chandler scandal. At that time, the most “shocking” or scandalous thing the Quidoys had to say about Michael Jackson was that he had “speakers in his hibiscus plants that played Beethoven’s Fifth” and didn’t get up before midday. In other words, it was, as stated here, little more than an upbeat expose on “the inside, wacky world of Michael Jackson.” There was no mention whatsoever of any of the supposed criminal acts that they later were all too willing to admit only after the Chandler allegations, and only after they thought their story would generate much more than a mere quarter of a million. It was only then that the Quindoys came forth, holding a press conference featuring a diary which they claimed to have kept during their employment. In the diary, they claimed to have witnessed such offenses as Michael kissing boys while lewdly rubbing their bodies. But even if we presume any grain of truth to their accusations, it would mean that they sat on this information for years, refusing to come forth to authorities, and only talking when the price was right. And this is a pattern that we see repeated, over and over.

“A lot of people who claimed to have witnessed Jackson doing this, they were not going to the police first. Their main interest was money. They’d come to journalists who could give them money. So in that circumstance journalists know more about what happened than the police do”.-Kevin Smith, Splash News

While it doesn’t exactly exonerate Michael when we question why employees who claimed to witness such acts turned a blind eye and went to tabloids rather than the police, it sure as heck doesn’t do anything for the credibility of their alleged stories. I have heard all of the excuses that his detractors like to give. They pretend to buy into these employees’ excuses that they were threatened and scared for their lives (but let’s stress again, they were never too afraid to go to the tabloids. Well, I suppose it is true that figures upward of half a million dollars should be able to buy a lot of security!).

Michael’s Opulent Lifestyle Also Meant Being Dependent On Many Employees…Not All Of Whom Had His Best Interests At Herat

It could also be plausible that an unethical employee, concerned for their own job security, might turn a blind eye to a good many things in order to keep their paycheck coming. I could buy this before I would buy that these people were really scared for their safety. But honestly, if such acts were really going on right under employees’ noses, it would stand to figure that many more would have come forth through the years. It’s also plausible that at least one or two would have been ethical enough to go to the police first, rather than straight to the tabloids.

There had been other efforts, prior to the Chandler allegations, of employees attempting to get a windfall at Michael’s expense. But these had all been for far more innocuous incidents-relatively speaking, that is, as far as celebrity lifestyles go. Perhaps the most notorious had been the alleged jacuzzi photos, when Neverland employees had attempted to sell photos purporting to be of Michael and two naked girls romping in a jacuzzi (it was claimed that one of the photos showed him touching one of the women’s breasts).  Those employees had asked for 60,000 pounds, but News of the World never published the photos because Michael threatened to sue. (It’s interesting that Michael never denied that the incident took place, however; only that he didn’t want those photos published!).

One Of Michael's Neverland Jacuzzis.

One Of Michael’s Neverland Jacuzzis.

Perhaps if Michael had only known what was to come, he wouldn’t have been so quick to squelch such evidence. The damage to his “squeaky, clean image” might have been a small price to pay for stemming the tide of what was to come later. Michael didn’t want the image of being just another pop star horn dog. However, it was partly this exact sort of recalcitrant attitude towards what most considered “normal” pop star behavior that led to his problems. As I have established in previous posts, it was largely the public perception of Michael Jackson’s sexuality-fueled in no small part by his own image making machine-that led so many to automatically assume his guilt. It wasn’t fair, perhaps, and still isn’t. But it’s human nature at work. “I’m not like other guys”-the line that had been so cute when he delivered it in Thriller-had taken on a somewhat more sinister connotation by 1993.

But to get back to the topic at hand, the point is that by the early 1990′s, “selling out” Michael Jackson for a price was already big business. The question is: How did it go from tales of naked girls in jacuzzis, to hands down a little boy’s {ahem- Macauley Culkin’s)-pants? And what was the motivation for this suddenly perverse twist of stories?

Well, one thing we do know from court testimony-as well as the book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, is that there was a connection between these employees and Victor Gutierrez. The Vindicating Michael site did a very detailed post on that very topic in June of 2011:

From there, I will reprint this brief court testimony transcript from 2005 between Tom Mesereau and Ralph Chacon. At the time, Chacon was being cross-examined regarding the judgement made against him for having stolen $25,000 worth of property from Michael Jackson:

Q. Who was Sandy Domz?

A. She was one of the secretaries at Neverland


Q. Okay. Do you recall Sandy Domz ever 5229

approaching a tabloid?

A. No, sir.

Q. Don’t know anything about it?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

author named Gutierrez?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

book author named Gutierrez?

A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

the date or the time.

The fact that there is an established connection between Gutierrez and these employees is at least enough to raise a lot of suspicion. We know that, as early as 1991 (around the same time as Bill Wyman’s infamous observation in his hit piece “I Want Me Back: The Education of Michael Jackson” that Michael had “intense” relationships with “nine-year-old boys”) Phillip and Stella LeMarque had first attempted to sell their story to the tabloids. At the time, they had just been fired by Michael’s aide Norma Staikos. Shortly thereafter, Phillip LeMarque had attempted to go into business, opening an Encino restaurant he called Bourbon Street, but was soon bankrupt to the tune of almost $500,000. Not coincidentally, it was during this time that he began trying to peddle his story of witnessing Michael molesting Macauley Culkin. As has been famously reported, their story went from allegedly seeing Michael’s hands outside of the boy’s pants to inside the pants as the amount of money offered for their story increased from $100,000 to $500,000.

In a well known Smoking Gun piece from 2005, much of Phillip LeMarques’s past-as well as many questionable stains upon his own character-were revealed.

Phillip LeMarque

Phillip LeMarque

It was a rare turn for the media at the time to take such a pot shot at a DA witness, which perhaps says all that needs to be said about just how sleazy LeMarque was, and just how much credibility he lacked as a witness. (It also shows just how desperate the DA was for credible witnesses).

Of course, Michael Jackson detractors will say that this is the worst kind of ad hominem attack, and in a way, they are right. Phillip LeMarques’s own character, and his own background as a porn entrepreneur, should have no bearing on what he claimed he and his wife saw-if, in fact, they saw anything at all. But that is the real question, and in a case where we only have one person’s word against another, we do have to at least consider the credibility of the witness making the claim.

As has been stated often enough, the fact that none of these so-called witnesses went to the authorities, and instead brandied and bargained these stories about to the tabloids for over two years, in the end did irreparable damage to any credibility their stories might have had.

What was really happening? Were these employees really witnessing lewd acts, or totally fabricating them? I actually have a theory that what at least some of them were witnessing-or claiming to witness-was a truth somewhere in the middle, which could have possibly laid the groundwork for a suspicious (and greedy) mind to construe more than met the eye. I will try to explain in a way that makes sense.

We all know that Michael was a very affectionate person by nature, someone who loved to give hugs and was never shy about displays of affection. He especially felt this was important with children, and stated so many times, due to the lack of affection he had felt so keenly in his own childhood. Michael was a firm believer that children have to be shown that they are loved. We can often see in his videos and interactions with children (those that were recorded) that he can often be seen hugging and kissing children of both sexes, tousling their hair, teasing them affectionately, and other such gestures.

But Michael, I believe firmly, was also a bit OCD. And I say this with the utmost realization that I am always one of those who cautions against the tendency to psychoanalyze or “diagnose” Michael. However, having observed as much footage of him as I have, I have gotten a pretty good feel for his body language, his baseline mannerisms (as well as how they changed over time) and patterns of behavior. To me, Michael displayed more than a few OCD patterns that I am very familiar with, and one is a tendency toward certain repetitive behaviors. For example, a lot of people might kiss a child on the cheek once. But Michael, when in the company of a child he felt very affectionate towards, might be inclined to repeat the gesture numerous times (whether from compulsion, or a sense of insecurity, or just wanting to ensure that the message got across). A good example of what I’m talking about can be seen in this video from the Black or White set, where Michael is posing and cutting up informally with Sage, the little Native American girl in the video.

We can see that Michael kisses her several times. Part of this, of course, is because they were shooting publicity stills. Michael, ever the image conscious showman, is aware they are being filmed, and wants to make sure the camera captures “just the right moment.” In a way, it’s a kind of rehearsal. But also, some have noted, it is a bit excessive, and Sage at one point appears clearly either uncomfortable, or is perhaps just a bit shy about all of the attention. (For the record, Sage has never had anything but wonderful things to say about her experience of working with Michael Jackson on this video). It is also very clear from the video that, even though she might have been a little shy about all of the hugs and kisses, she is nevertheless very comfortable in his presence, as they converse and talk. I, myself, can remember being very shy around grown-ups at that age, and I never especially liked “kissy” types like my paternal grandmother (bless her soul). I would be one of those kids who would go “ick” and immediatly try to wash my face!

Point being, some kids are really comfortable and okay with displays of affection from adults, and some are not. For Michael, such displays were a natural part of his being-they came from a genuinely loving spirit-but I think he may have possibly had some OCD tendencies that made his gestures seem excessive to some. For example, even some of the comments I have seen regarding this clip with Sage are perfect examples of people misinterpreting Michael’s actions.

From something like this, it becomes easier to see how some of those exaggerated tales of “head licking” and such (courtesy of Bob Jones) may have emerged. As simple a gesture as a kiss to the top of a child’s head could easily be misconstrued by a dirty and suspicious mind into something more (and especially if such gesture is repeated many times in quick succession, as Michael was prone to do-honestly, I don’t think he was even always conscious of these repetitive actions!).

That is just a theory I have, of course, and I have no concrete evidence or proof that Michael was OCD. But having observed tons of footage of him, I believe there is at least some merit to the theory. And that this could, in fact, go far in explaining how some of these outrageous witness claims came to be.

I had said before that some of my views may be controversial, and I know not everyone will agree with me. But rather than simply calling everyone around Michael an outright greedy liar (even though many were just that!) it is also imperative that we look at some of Michael’s own behaviors-even if they were innocent behaviors!-that may have helped perpetuate some of these beliefs. I believe that Michael was misjudged a lot by the people around him; his intentions were misjudged a lot, and as early as 1991, there was already a dark and rising tide against him that he was somewhat helpless to stem. It would soon become a case of “damned if he does; damned if he doesn’t.”


More to come…

Comments: 71 Comments

Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On? Pt 4

Harold Bloom Put It Best: "Dark Forces Were Gathering Around Him."

Howard Bloom Put It Best: “Dark Forces Were Gathering Around Him.”

When I left off in Part Three, I was discussing Victor Gutierrez, his connections to NAMBLA, and his quest to connect Michael to pedophilia as early as 1986. This led to a series of interviews with parents of children associated with Michael. We know that one of these parents ended up being none other than Evan Chandler, who was already upset with Michael and blaming him as the guy who had broken up his family. We can only imagine that it didn’t take much persuasion to convince Evan, either to construct a lie or to believe the worst.

Back in 2010, I did a piece entitled “Evan Chandler Confessed To Drugging Michael.” This wasn’t exactly in-depth detective work, since the whole incident was discussed quite openly in Ray Chandler’s book All That Glitters. It was just that it surprised me how few people actually knew about this incident (and I think this is largely because MJ fans, as a whole, tend to avoid negative books about him). However, it  also surprises me that even a lot of haters don’t seem to know about this incident. Or if they do, they don’t admit it-perhaps out of embarrassment! (Evan’s actions that particular Memorial Day weekend are pretty hard to defend).

Evan Drugged Michael And Attempted To Set Him Up-By His Own Admission!

Evan Drugged Michael And Attempted To Set Him Up-By His Own Admission!

Let’s revisit what I wrote in 2010. Since most of these older AFLB articles did not convert well when the site was restored (a lot of the original formatting was screwed up) I won’t bother linking to them, but will just copy and paste those passages that are relevant to our purposes now.

For those of you who may be wondering why I’m spending so much time discussing the Chandlers right now, when the focus of this series is on Wade Robson and his allegations, please be patient. Understanding the roots of these allegations is crucial to understanding how someone like Wade Robson has become convinced he can get away with bringing more accusations in 2013. And it is not an easy web to untangle!

First of all, for a glimpse of Evan Chandler’s mindset at or about the time when Gutierrez would have visited him, let’s look at what I wrote in a piece from April 2010 titled “Was Daddy Just Jealous Cause Daddy Couldn’t Play?”:

Michael pretty much had Evan Chandler’s entire family as semi-permanent guests at Neverland,  including ex-wife June and son Jordan, not to mention Jordan’s half-sister Lilly, whose presence in the picture often gets conveniently overlooked, since the media always loved to focus on the presence of little boys at Neverland while ignoring the fact that there were just as many female children who came and went on a regular basis.


I wrote in November that Evan Chandler couldn’t have been a happy camper during all this. June had divorced him; he had lost custody of his son to her. And now here they were, the two of them, living the high life courtesy of a glamorous and rich pop superstar who had all the success that Evan Chandler wanted, but couldn’t achieve (yes, he had written the succesful Robin Hood: Men In Tights, but in Hollywood, as we know too well, one is only as succesful as one’s last project. And in 1993, Chandler was struggling to get the $20 million he needed to finance his latest projects).

I’ve always maintained that the reason the Jackson-Chandler situation reached such a head was because I suspect there was a lot more emotional investment than just the fact that Michael had befriended this family. For starters, the relationship between Michael and June Chandler has been the source of some speculation. In this anonymous note, published at the time that the National Enquirer first ran the story of Michael and Scott Thorson and which some believed to have come from Frank Cascio early on (I believe it is now generally accepted that Cascio was most likely NOT the source of this note. I am more prone now to believe it may have come from Bob Jones) but, at any rate, who wrote it is not nearly as important as what it says. If we cast aside the possibility that the note could have been completely fabricated (which I can’t rule out, although I believe it has the ring of authenticity) it sounds very likely that that June Chandler was just another notch in Michael’s belt…or perhaps more?

“Then he was celibate for about 3
years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his,
an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody
cares about anymore but was the ish back in the day, some
groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk @#$%$ Jordan who got jealous
of mommy’s relationship with Michael)
 and, of course, Lisa Marie…”

(Excerpted from “Was Michael Jackson A Womanizer”

It does raise some interesting questions as well as putting a whole other spin on how the Chandler drama unfolded the way it did.

michael and chandlers

First of all, it makes sense that Michael would have been sprung for June Chandler Schwartz. She was a gorgeous, exotic beauty with supermodel looks. Additionally, his behavior with June is very consistent with other stories of how he conducted himself when sprung for a woman. The invitations to Neverland, the lavish gifts, the trips and vacations together, allowing her full use of his credit card…all of the things that most critics pinpointed as evidence that Michael was “grooming her” so as to get access to Jordan…makes far more sense in the context that Michael was, in fact, grooming June, in the same way that men have groomed the objects of their lust ever since-well, ever since time began.

Also, without question, he formed a close bond with her two children Jordie and Lilly. Michael became the father figure for Jordan that Evan had never been. Besides, when you’re 13 years old, who wouldn’t want a dad who lives in a fantastical, magic place like Neverland and has amusement park rides in his backyard and can take you on fun, exotic  trips all over the world?

So…put yourself in Evan Chandler’s place. What does he see happening? Hmmm. Well, his son is getting to play with Michael Jackson and having a blast. Mommy is getting to play with Michael Jackson and having a blast. Guess what? Daddy decides he should deserve to play with Michael Jackson and have a blast, as well.

Except for one thing Evan Chandler didn’t quite bargain on. You see, Michael Jackson didn’t find daddies to be nearly as much fun. Back in November when I wrote that first blog [this is reference to a piece I did on Evan and Michael in Nov 2009] I also wasn’t as much aware of  just what lengths Evan Chandler went to in order to become best buds with Michael. I was aware that he wanted Michael to finance his film projects. But I didn’t know just how extensively Chandler badgered him with proposed business deals, or to the extent with which he tried desperately to ingratiate himself to Michael, even going so far at one point as to suggest building his own guest house at Neverland so that he could come and go as he pleased, or stay as long as he liked. Michael refused. He also refused to back any of Evan Chandler’s increasingly demanding business schemes and ventures.

To be honest, there may have been more at stake here than just issues over money and business. After all, this was a period in Michael’s life where he was becoming increasingly desperate for a family, and for the sense of normalcy that having a family gives. I think partially the reason he took the Chandlers in as he did was because he came to view them as a substitute family at first, and then perhaps eventually, as the possibility for a very real family. But the problem: It was never truly “his” family.” It was Evan Chadler’s family, estranged or not. Thus, I think what what really went down was a case of two men who were both seeing their “families” threatened to be pulled asunder, and were fighting with desperate measures to keep it from happening. Michael felt that Evan was an abusive father to Jordie and should be kept away from him; Evan Chandler came to feel that Michael was a bad influence on Jordie. It was a mutual resentment that grew out of mistrust on both sides, and greed on the part of Chandler.

In an excellent series that I’ve been following from Thomas Harris, this is what Harris has to say about the relationship between Michael Jackson and Evan Chandler:

It’s interesting to note that not only does Chandler’s actions, in going to Michael’s entourage and demanding money to finance his screen projects instead of to the authorities, raise suspicion about his motives, but equally interesting is the fact that Michael refused to have any part of this deal, which he rightfully recognized as an extortion attempt. Keep in mind this was after-not before-Evan was already suspecting that Michael was molesting Jordan. Now think about this for a millisecond: IF Michael was guilty of those accusations, and knew it, it would stand to reason that he would have a guilty conscience, and would be extremely paranoid and fearful at even the hint of possibility that this thing could be turned over to the authorities and, even worse, leaked to the press. He would have moved hell or high water to keep that from happening. When you think about it, $20 million to back a few (most likely lousy) scripts that would most likely never get made anyway, wouldn’t have been a drop in the bucket for Michael. A man with a guilty conscience would have paid the sum willingly just to buy Evan Chandler’s silence. People who like to point to the Chandler settlement as proof of Michael’s guilt should weigh that one long and hard. Michael had a golden opportunity to buy their silence long before the insurance settlement, and had he done so -had he caved in to Chandler’s demands to back his screenplays-most likely, nothing pertaining to the Chandlers and Michael Jackson would have ever made it into the media at all. If Michael had been able to foresee the future, would he have changed his mind about backing Chandler’s deals? I doubt it. Michael was naive in some ways, but he was not the gullible fool that many tried to portray him as. He knew when he was being “taken.” He knew he wasn’t guilty. He stood his ground, and in the end, paid the price for doing so.
Okay, so now let’s move forward to that infamous incident of  Memorial Day weekend, 1993:

 Now, what initially made Evan suspicious is when June called Evan from Neverland on April 9th, 1993(pages 16-17) and told him that they are BOTH going to lose control over Jordie to MJ. She didn’t suspect anything sexual, but just felt that Jordie was spending too much time with MJ.  Here is the part where Evan drugs MJ on Memorial Day weekend 1993, from page 45:

Monique reiterated her opinion that Michael was taking up too much of Jordie’s life.  But this time she offered an additional observation.  “Jordie doesn’t even know you’re in the room, Evan.  Can’t you see what’s going on?  They’re in love!”  (Does this not strike anyone as odd? Who the heck uses language like that for discussing an adult’s relationship with a child!).

As You Can See In This Photo With Omer Bhatti, Michael's Young Friends DID Tend To Dress Like Him, and Michael Seemed To Encourage It. But How Much Of This Was Simply Hero Worship And Ego? Did Some-Like Evan-Try To Read Too Much Into It?

As You Can See In This Photo With Omer Bhatti, Michael’s Young Friends DID Tend To Dress Like Him, and Michael Seemed To Encourage It. But How Much Of This Was Simply Hero Worship And Ego? Did Some-Like Evan-Try To Read Too Much Into It?

 The minute the “L” word left Monique’s mouth, Evan believed she was right.  “It should have been a dead giveaway,” Evan recalled weeks later, “when Jordie came walking in the house that night wearing tight black pants, white socks, black loafers and a black fedora, and Michael came walking in right behind him wearing the same thing.  Or when they ran off in to the living room together after dinner and closed the door behind them, leaving me to work alone on the history paper.  Or that Michael never once called Jordie by name, referring to him instead by affectionate nicknames like Applehead and Doo Doo Head.”  (Evan obviously hadn’t spent much time around Neverland; otherwise, he would have known that Michael and ALL of the kids referred to each other by those names).

 “Do you think it’s physical?” Evan asked his wife.

 “I don’t know?” Monique answered.  “It could just be infatuation. But whatever it is, it’s not good for Jordie.”

At this point, Monique suggested that Evan straight up ask Jordie if it was sexual, and Evan agreed.  One morning, MJ woke up with a splitting headache, and sent Jordie to seek Evan’s help.  Evan was in the bathroom, when Jordie sought his help (pages 46-49):

I’ll be there in a minute”. Evan said, and as Jordie turned to leave, added, “Hey Jordie, are you and Michael doin’ it?”

 That’s disgusting!” Jordie reacted.  “I’m not into that!”

 “Just kidding.” (Okay, I know he explains why he did it, but still…that whole conversation just totally creeped me out!).

 Evan explained it this way.  “It was crude, but I was so anxious, I decided on the spur of the moment to say it because I figured it would elicit an unplanned response.”  Jordie’s repulsion brought Evan great relief.  So much so, that he felt quite chipper as he walked down the hall to check on Michael.

 The singer was walking in circles, holding his head.  “I didn’t sleep all night,” he complained. “I’ve got a bad headache. I get them all the time.”

 “Do you know what causes them?”  Evan asked.

 “Yeah, I’ve had them ever since my hair caught fire.  They said it’s from the surgery.”

 Evan offered the standard remedies, aspirin and Tylenol, but Michael insisted they had no effect on him and that his doctor usually gave him a shot of something, he didn’t know what.  When Evan suggested that the call his doctor, Michael refused.  He didn’t want to bother the man on a holiday weekend.  Instead, he asked Evan if he could give him something stronger. 

 Evan rattled off a list of drugs to see if he could find out what Michael’s doctor used.  When he mentioned Demerol, Michael said that sounded familiar.  Evan did not use Demerol in his practice, so he called Mark Torbiner for advice.  The anesthesiologist suggested an injection of Toradol, a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol, and offered to pick some up at Evan’s office and bring it to his house. 

 Evan injected 30mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael’s gluteus.  (So Evan was playing doctor?). But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.

 “Keep an eye on him,” Evan told Jordie.  “It’ll take a few minutes to kick in.  I’ll be right back.”

 “When I went back to check on him, maybe ten minutes later,” Evan recalled, “He was acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring is speech.  Toradol is pretty safe drug, and I thought that either he was having a rare reaction or had taken another drug and was having a combination reaction.” (Or maybe he was given something else altogether?).

 Other than the drunk-like symptoms, Michael’s pulse and respirations were normal and he appeared to be in no real danger.  So Evan took no further action. 

 But Jordie was scared.  He had seen his friend “acting strange” before, but never like this.

 “Don’t worry,” Evan assured his son, “Right now Michael’s the happiest person in the world.  All we need to do is keep him awake and talking until the drug wears off.”

 Four hours and a serious case of cottonmouth later, Michael began to sober up.  While Jordie was downstairs fetching water, Evan decided to take advantage of Michael’s still uninhibited but somewhat coherent condition.  “Hey, Mike, I was just wondering….I mean, I don’t care either way, but I know some of your closest people are gay, and I was wondering if you’re gay too?”  (This is the big WTF moment!).

 “You’d be surprised about a lot of people in this town,” Michael mumbled, as he rattled off the names of a few prominent Hollywood players who were still in the closet. (Poor Mike, but I have to confess, the thought of Michael babbling incoherently about who was and wasn’t “in the closet” was kind of funny…well, okay, it was a little bit funny, anyway).

 Evan tried to get back on track before Jordie returned.  He stroked Michael’s hair and reassured him,  “I don’t care if you’re gay, Mike.  I just want you to know you can tell me if you are.”

 “Uh-uh”, Michael slurred.  “Not me.” (Lol! Evan wasn’t pulling THAT one over on him!).

Given Michael’s willingness to talk openly about everyone else’s sexuality, his consistent denial about being gay reinforced Evan’s belief that the singer was asexual. (As if there were only two choices? Gimme a break!).

 Michael remained in bed all day, with Jordie sitting by his side on the edge of the single bed.  Cody joined them about ten, and by ten-thirty the three boys were fast asleep.

 Evan was tired, too, but the thought that Michael might awake during the night and take more drugs caused him to get up several times to check on the star.  On his third visit, around 3am, Evan found the boys still fast asleep.  But Jordie was now in Michael’s bed, spooning, with Michael’s arm wrapped tightly around the boy, his hand resting on the boy’s crotch on the outside of the covers.

 Ever so gently, Evan picked up Michael’s arm and moved it to the side, then slowly pulled back the covers.  Thank God!  They were both fully clothed.

Looking back now on what I wrote in July of 2010, there are other details from that account that really leap out and make you wonder. Notice that even though Evan claims to already have suspicions that Michael is molesting his son, he not only purposely sets him up to sleep in the same room, but-upon discovering them allegedly “spooning” in bed, simply lets them be after satisfying himself that they were both clothed. (Wouldn’t a concerned parent have woken the kid up, or Michael up, then and there-fully clothed or not!-and told one or the other of them that this was not acceptable and that they were going to have to sleep elsewhere? Well, yes. Any normal parent would have. But remember, Evan had much bigger designs for down the road).

Could The Infamous "Toradol Incident" Have Been Set Up As An Excuse To Get Michael In The Buff?

Could The Infamous “Toradol Incident” Been Set Up As An Excuse To Get Michael In The Buff?

Also, is it not possible that the “Toradol incident” could have been staged as an excuse to get MJ unclothed below the waist (since its administration required a shot in the glut) so that, perhaps they might be able to correlate a description later on? I think this is certainly plausible. Even if the description Jordie gave later did not match, it could very well be possible that this whole incident was a setup to give them that opportunity.

And what of Michael’s relationship with June? I want to come back to this because it plays into exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about when it came to Michael’s relationships with many of these families.

According to Ray Chandler, Evan not only believed that June was having an affair with Michael, but even stated how happy he was that maybe June had finally met a guy who would be good to her. After seeing the tickets Michael had bought for her to Monaco, he even entertained some hope that she might divorce her then-husband David Schwartz and hook up with Michael. (I am sure, no doubt, he was already envisioning how profitably an alliance between Michael and his ex wife might benefit him!).

And although certainly not the most reliable of witnesses, Adrian MacManus testified under oath that she frequently saw June coming and going from Michael’s bedroom at Neverland.

Also, about the time that June began hanging out with Michael, she separated from David Schwartz, and her visits to Michael increased exponentially.

Michael gave her a Cartier love bracelet-not exactly a gift to be taken lightly! You can read more about the story behind the bracelet here:

Michael Gave June A Cartier Love Bracelet. This Bracelet Is Strictly "For Lovers Only."

Michael Gave June A Cartier Love Bracelet. This Bracelet Is Strictly “For Lovers Only.”

Michael’s infatuation with June and her family did not exactly go unnoticed. Before long, even the tabloids were picking up the story (though if this National Enquirer story from 1993 is the one that Ray Chandler was referring to from May 17, 1993, he says it was June’s sister who sold the story).

Although I do not have the scan, the text from that ’93 article is quite interesting. The headline reads: MICHAEL JACKSON’S SECRET FAMILY-A MILLIONAIRE WIFE AND HER TWO KIDS. The story presents a somewhat bizarre love triangle between Michael, a married woman, and her two kids, although readers are left with the impression that the worst anyone could accuse Michael of in this instance is for carrying on an infatuation with a married woman. (Hardly a crime by Hollywood standards). June and her two kids are referred to repeatedly as Michael’s “family.” “I consider you my own family,” Michael is reported as saying in the article. “And I’ll look out for you as if you were.” At another point, he is quoted as saying, “We have so much fun together that it’s ecstasy.”

This story came right on the heels of Michael’s month long “residence” with the family in Las Vegas in April of 1993. Even though Jordie is mentioned several times in the article-including a shopping spree at Toys ‘R Us and a dinner at the Mirage’s Chinese restaurant-it is clear that in this context, none of his behavior with Jordan apparently raised any suspicions, and it seems for all appearances that he was giving both children equal treatment.

“”When Michael walked back to the villa holding their hands, he was smiling like a proud papa,’ said an eyewitness.”

A proud papa. Nothing more; nothing less.

It’s also interesting that one of the exclusive feature photos of the issue is a beautiful photo of Michael cuddling Lilly.

Here is a video that does a good job of outlining how the Michael/June affair came about; other than repeating the lie regarding the rumor that Jordan had recanted his story (he has not) it is very informative:

Anyway, in light of everything mentioned in that National Enquirer article, I am 100% certain it must have been the one Ray Chandler was referring to when he stated:

Simultaneous with their return from Europe, the National Enquirer released a story that disturbed Evan greatly. While he was aware that anyone hanging around with Michael would eventually appear in the tabloids this particular story was about Michael’s new family and described Jordie as if he was the singer’s adopted son.

The article was pure hype, but Evan feared that Jordie might now be a target for kidnappers or jealous fans. Michael had voiced his love for many children, all children, but never before had any one child been described as being that close to the superstar.

Knowing that Dave would share his concerns, Evan suggested he tell June to “stop yapping to her friends.” It was a sister of June’s closest friend who had sold the story to the Enquirer.

Two days later June called Evan to scold him for telling Dave she had a big mouth. No sooner had June finished with Evan when Dave called. If Evan was upset about the Enquirer article, Dave was livid. “That asshole is destroying my business and my family!” he screamed into the phone. Dave told Evan he was getting calls from friends and business acquaintances expressing their sympathy for the loss of his family. He felt humiliated.

Dave also felt double-crossed. Before June left for Europe he gave her five thousand dollars and told her not to accept any gifts from Michael. Dave didn’t seem to care at this point that Michael was constantly showering presents on his kids, but his wife was another story. June took the five thousand, but she was not about to pass up a Jackson-financed shopping spree just to pacify the ego of her estranged husband.

Dave was jealous, but of greater concern was the effect on his business. He was heavily leveraged in a down-turned real estate market, and things were not going well. With his family’s exploits plastered all over the tabloids, his creditors became even more nervous now that his personal life was unstable.

“Calm down,” Evan told Dave. “I’ll call June and see if I can work things out.”

But June had her own lament. “He wants me to get rid of Michael,” she told Evan. “Why should I? Michael’s been good to the kids and me. Dave ignores them. He hardly even bothers to call Kelly anymore. Uh-uh, no way.” It appears as if June was more willing to get rid of Dave than she was of Michael. Dave and June’s marriage had been strained for many years and they had unofficially separated several months before Michael came into their lives.-Ray Chandler.

An interesting dynamic sprung up between Evan and David Schwartz shortly thereafter, in which both men would act interchangeably, and by turns, as both allies and bitter rivals. In a sense, Michael became something of a pawn in both of their schemes to “get even,” with Dave sometimes acting in Michael’s corner, and other times, betraying him, depending on which side of Evan’s he happened to be on any given particular day. Schwartz would eventually demand his own four million dollar settlement from Michael, after having been turned down for a request of a four million dollar loan to pay off a personal debt.

The infamous tape in which Evan confessed he was out to ruin Michael: Apparently, Dave at least “pretended” to be on Evan’s side that day, only to betray him later by releasing the tape:

However, the portion of the tape that most media outlets played conveniently left out an important piece to the puzzle. Here is an excerpt from Charles Thomson’s 2009 article “Chandler Suicide Highlights Media Bias Against Jackson.” The highlighted passages are my emphasis.

When Evan first met Jackson he felt ‘exhilaration’ and ‘awe’. However, when Jackson stopped returning his calls he became bitter. On July 8th 1993 Evan was tape recorded complaining that Michael had stopped telephoning him: ‘There was no reason why he had to stop calling me’. 

He added that he’d had a conversation with Jackson and told him ‘exactly what I want out of the relationship with him’. 

‘I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find,’ he said of his new attorney. ‘All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s smart and he’s hungry for publicity. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. I’ve given him full authority to do that.’

‘If I go through with this, I win big time,’ he continued. ‘There is no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody] and Michael’s career will be over.’

This is interesting. If the plan wasn’t “just” Evan’s than whose plan was it? Who was conspiring with him? Secondly, it’s interesting to note that this wasn’t just a plan to destroy Michael, but to destroy June, as well. Evan makes it very clear that his resentment and desire for revenge is aimed at both of them, as a pair.

Into this volatile mix, at some point, enters Victor Gutierrez, the man who has been on a mission since the late 1980′s to “prove” Michael a pedophile.

Evan Chandler Wrote "Don't Let This Happen" On What Was Allegedly A "Suicide Drawing" Done By Jordan. Chandler Gave Gutierrez Permission To Use The Sketch In MJWML.

Evan Chandler Wrote “Don’t Let This Happen” On What Was Allegedly A “Suicide Drawing” Done By Jordan. Chandler Gave Gutierrez Permission To Use The Sketch In MJWML.

At what point did Evan Chandler and Victor Gutierrez hook up? Unfortunately, that is where the mystery remains. It would be wonderful to know for certain that it was before June of 1993, and perhaps one day that important missing piece of the puzzle will be put into place. But for sure, we know that these men not only did meet, but collaborated on several of the illustrations and  documents that went into Michael Jackson Was My Lover. Apparently, however, the friendship between Chandler and Gutierrez eventually soured.

One thing I have noticed-and so have many others!-is that Evan, like Gutierrez, seemed to have an unusually perverted obsession with the idea of a romantic link between Michael and his son. It doesn’t take much detective work to realize that these men spoke the same language (the lingo of NAMBLA and of boy lovers everywhere). Evan’s use of phrases such as “in love” (when referring to Michael and Jordan) are directly in line with much of the language that permeates Gutierrez’s own descriptions.

And let’s not forget what Carrie Fischer said of Evan Chandler:

But remember that dentist who sued Michael for molesting his kid?

Yes, that was my dentist. Evan Chandler, D.D.S. Dentist to the Stars. And this same Dr. Chandler—long before the lawsuit was brought (though not necessarily before it was contemplated)—needed someone to brag to about his son’s burgeoning friendship with Michael Jackson. (This was years before Michael had children of his own.) And so my “dentist” would go on and on about how much his son liked Michael Jackson and, more important, how muchMichael Jackson liked his son. And the most disturbing thing I remember him saying was, “You know, my son is very good looking.”

Now I ask you—what father talks about his child that way? Well, maybe some do but (a) I don’t know them, and (b) they probably aren’t raising  an eyebrow and looking suggestive when they say it. Over the years I’ve heard many proud fathers tell me, “My son is great,” or “My kid is adorable,” but this was the only time I’d ever heard this particular boast:

“My son [unlike most average male offspring] is VERY [unsettling smile, raised eyebrows, maybe even a lewd wink] good-looking [pause for you to reflect and/or puke].”

It was grotesque! This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that he assumed Michael Jackson wanted, and it happened to be his son. But it wasn’t who his son was, it was what he was: “good-looking.”-Carrie Fischer.

More of Chandler's and Gutierrez's Collaborative "Artwork." Chandler Attempts To Theorize What He "Thinks" Michael's Penis Looks Like.

More of Chandler’s and Gutierrez’s Collaborative “Artwork.” Chandler Attempts To Theorize What He “Thinks” Michael’s Penis Looks Like.

In any event, what we have here is certainly a case of some interesting forces converging. In the next installment, I will look into some other rumored cases that pre-date the ’93 Chandler case and their origins. Also, as long promised, hopefully time will permit me in the next installment to address some of these troubling and puzzling issues regarding Michael’s relationships with kids for once and for all. But in closing, keep in mind what has already been established regarding Michael and June Chandler, who most likely were lovers (let’s stress most likely; we don’t know, of course, and June Chandler these days isn’t talking). Almost ALL of these boys, with a few exceptions I can count on one hand,came from families with single or divorced/estranged moms. Almost ALL of them (with perhaps one exception) had sisters. Remember when I said I believed sincerely that some of these friendships were smokescreens? Now you may be starting to follow my drift. Let’s just say that Michael’s libido probably got him into more than a few iffy situations-and NOT in the way that his detractors would have you think!

Stay tuned…

Comments: 72 Comments

Our mobile site

QR Code - scan to visit our mobile site

This is a 2D-barcode containing the address of our mobile site.If your mobile has a barcode reader, simply snap this bar code with the camera and launch the site.

Many companies provide barcode readers that you can install on your mobile, and all of the following are compatible with this format:

Switch to our mobile site