Rebutting Wyman and "The Education of Michael Jackson"-Part Two

"I Want Me Back? Gee, I Wasn't Aware I'd Lost Me!"

Today I am going to continue my rebuttal of Bill Wyman’s 1991 article “I Want Me Back: The Education of Michael Jackson.” This is an important article for rebuttal, as it was a major article at the time that helped fuel a lot of the myths and misunderstandings that came to be perpetuated regarding Michael Jackson. However, due to the fact that breaking this article down is proving to be ultimately more detailed and time consuming than I had initially anticipated, I have decided to take a more leisurely approach with it and will be stretching this out over a few installments, rather than the two installments I had intially planned. I will also be breaking in between to do other stories, since a topic like this obviously gets more than a little heavy-handed after awhile, and I need a break! What I’m finding, however, is that approaching an article like this for the purpose of rebuttal can-and does-lead to many other avenues of discussion, all worthy topics in their own right. Like the one I found myself grappling with today, an issue that was already apparently being whispered in many circles as early as 1991: Was Michael sexually abused as a child?

For those just joining me, you can read Part One here:

Whereas Part One was mostly concerned with issues of Jackson family dysfunction and the controversy over artist “sell out,” it is in the next several passages that Wyman really cements the damage-and where I will be placing my most intense focus.

When I concluded Part One, I had addressed the issue Wyman brought up regarding Michael’s deals with Pepsi, LA Gear, and other attempts at licensing his name and image. As I said before, this is an issue for which I’m pretty much content to let others have whatever view they wish. I understand the controversy over artistry and commercial endorsement. Its a controversy that has deeply embedded roots in the whole indie music vs. pop music rivalry, with so-called music “purists” (translation: music snobs) dictating the standards by which all artists should be judged. There was a time when I was prone to agree with artists like Neil Young that the Michael Jacksons of the pop world were sellout artists. But as I said, there are two ways one can look at this. What some might call “selling out” can also be viewed by some as simply having good business savvy-and it’s always easy for the less succesful (and less rich!) to knock what they don’t have. Michael Jackson had become, by 1991, not just a singer and entertainer, but a brand. A commodity.

And a very,very wealthy one, at the relatively young age of thirty-three.

LA Gear Ad

But dispensing with what even Wyman concedes is hardly something to fault Michael too harshly for, he then proceeds to some of the most controversial aspects of Michael’s life at that time. Let’s resume our journey here (the bolded passages are my emphasis):

The second area of concern is Jackson’s sex life. In The Magic and the Madness, Taraborrelli says that rumors about Michael’s having been molested as a child had been “circulating for many years within the music industry.” Whether this or any of other numerous rumors is true is something that only certain people know, and it’s almost too easy to grasp at as a simplistic explanation for some of Michael Jackson’s hangups: the apparently complete absence of romantic involvement in his life; his fondness for, alternately, older women (Liz Taylor, Katharine Hepburn) and very young boys, preferably famous ones (Home Alone’s Macaulay Culkin, Webster’s Emmanuel Lewis).

Life on the road with the Jackson 5 was of course similar to life on the road with any other rock ‘n’ roll band. Joseph was apparently the winner in the groupie sweepstakes, and according to Taraborrelli’s book even displayed his on-the-road finds to the boys. The older brothers, Jermaine and Jackie, met a lot of women as well, and casually dragged them back to the hotel rooms, warning their younger brothers to pretend that they were asleep. None of this boded well for the boys in the family (excepting Michael): again, their marriages were routinely torn with charges of infidelity and wife-beating. (Taraborrelli reports that Hazel Gordy, who divorced Jermaine after 14 years of marriage, later charged that he attempted to rape her one night after visiting with their children.) Taraborrelli documents the family’s various sexual escapades well, tracking down groupies with stories to tell and even the woman and daughter Joseph kept on the side.

After a while, however, it becomes unnerving to realize that in all of his research, Taraborrelli can simply find no one to point to as definitely having had sex with Michael Jackson. Jackson was dating Tatum O’Neal for a while, and says in his upbeat autobiography, Moonwalker, that the pair were “romantically involved.” O’Neal, however, says the affair was never consummated. Is Michael a virgin? Is Michael gay? Why does he develop such, um, intense relationships with nine-year-old boys? Why did he live at home until he was 30? All of these are uncomfortable, prying questions, but they’re not, on balance, untoward. We all have a stake in the survival of our artists: a familial and public history that creates an aging boy-man with no discernible sex life is one that begs to be examined.

This is exactly the kind of hogwash that I’ve spent so much time refuting here, simply because 99% of it is bs! And what isn’t bs is, for the most part, irrelevent speculation.


This Steamy Pose Aside, The Plot to "Desex" Michael Was Already Well Underway By '92

In the very first sentence of the above passage, he refers to Michael’s sex life as “an area of major concern.” But one has to ask: A major concern to who, exactly? The fans? The media? Or to nosybody journalists with an agenda? I get that celebrities are not necessarily entitled to the same rights to privacy as an ordinary citizen, but at what point is a line of decency drawn? And what does it say about us when a celebrity’s personal sex life has become a “concern” for us all?

Well, I was around in 1991, and I can assure you that I-and most people I can speak for-weren’t sitting around obsessing over Michael Jackson’s sex life. But apparently a lot of people-people like Wyman and his apparent idol, Taraborelli, were. And they were the ones who were bent on writing the history. But why?

Before I address that question, let me back up to this issue of whether Michael was ever sexually molested as a child. The simple truth is that we don’t know. I think it would be naive to simply play pollyanna and assume it never happened. On the flipside, however, all we can say with certainty is that Michael never claimed he was abused sexually (physically was another story) and there are no reliable witnesses or sources who have ever been able to back those claims. It’s been said that when Latoya was writing her first book, she tried to convince Michael to come forward with her in making claims of sexual abuse within the family, but Michael refused to do it, and threatened legal action if Latoya went through with the claims (she didn’t).

Now, as to whether this was a case of denial, or of protecting someone, or simply a wish to keep something so traumatic private, or simply because it never happened and Michael had no wish to participate in manufactured lies, I don’t know.


Well, They Certainly LOOKED Pretty Cozy In 1980

There have been two widely circulated stories that claim Michael was sexually abused as a child, but both are open to suspect for various reasons. One is the claim from a woman named Antionette Holmes, a former president of The Jackson 5 fan club who also used to babysit the younger guys. In a New York Post article, she claimed that in 1969, when Michael was 10 years old and the group was staying with her while performing at the Apollo, that Michael bragged to her about having sexual relations with an adult girlfriend. The NYP link has since become disabled, but here are some sites that discuss the story:

Holmes’s attorney Davio Navarro added further fuel to the fire by stating that the “adult girlfriend” in question was “a world renowned celebrity,” leading many to speculate that it might have been Diana Ross.

But before running too wild with a story like that, there are some important facts to keep in mind, one being the fact that we simply don’t know how reliable is this one woman’s word (and other than Navarro, it doesn’t appear there are any other sources that corroborate this claim). However, even if we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that Michael said this, how do we know this wasn’t simply childish boasting on Michael’s part? Trust me, I’ve been around enough little boys that age to know they can and will boast about all manner of imaginary conquests with older women they lust after. In fact, I remember quite well that when I was a child, the 10-year-old son of our neighbor across the street would boast constantly about his hot “girlfriend” and everything they did together. Finally one day my sister asked him point-blank who this mystery “girlfriend” was. “Farrah Fawcett,” he answered.

At ten years old, Michael definitely wasn’t too young to be entertaining fantasies about Diana Ross, and given his own admission that he’d had an early sexual awakening as a result of playing in strip clubs as young as seven years old, it’s very possible that he was simply boasting to Antionette Holmes about something he wished was true. It’s a story many have speculated about, but as it stands, it’s simply not substantial enough to be accepted as fact-certainly not substantial enough to accuse Ms. Ross of being a child molestor!

"He Would Be Sick For Days Afterward," Jermaine Allegedly Said, Referring To The "Business Meetings" Michael Was Forced To Attend...But Was This For Real, Or Just Another Fabricated Story? Jermaine Has Since Denied Making These Statements, Claiming A Lot Of Them Were Made Up By Stacy Brown

Then there is a story that supposedly came from Jermaine, via Stacy Brown and the book Jermaine was allegedly co-writing with Brown in the early 2000’s, to be entitled Legacy: Surviving The Best And The Worst (Jermaine denied on Larry King that he wrote this, and said Stacy Brown faked those pages credited to him-but then, let’s not forget, Jermaine also denied that he wrote Word To The Badd, and I’ve always had a personally hard time swallowing that excuse). Anyway, the story orginally credited to Jermaine goes that Joe used to set Michael, as a child, up for “business meetings” with important men in the industry. Jermaine allegedly said that Michael would be “sick for days” after these “meetings.”

As for Stacy Brown, you can read much more regading his brand of trustworthiness in this series:

And here:

But let’s get back to what Jermaine allegedly said. This story, along with a widely circulated report by alleged mind control victim Brice Taylor in her memoir Thanks For The Memories, has given rise to a entire cult belief that Michael Jackson was a child sex slave-in fact, an Illuminati sex slave! I swear, reading a passage like this, I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, be shocked, or just say, “Girl, please!”

“Brice Taylor relates that she and Michael Jackson and members of the Jackson family accompanied Bob Hope to a location where they were filming up-and- coming talent for TV.  Reportedly Bob Hope sponsored the young Jackson boys.  Brice Taylor writes: “Their father brought the boys in and I remembered seeing them taken into a side room where bright lights were on. “They all had to drop their pants and before their performance a big man raped each one of them in a lineup.”

Brice Taylor, Who May Have Singlehandedly Reported One Of The Most Bizarre Stories Ever Circulated About Michael Jackson!

Michael Jackson and his brothers serving as sex slaves for Bob Hope? Sounds far fetched? Well, just google “Michael Jackson Sexually Abused As A Child” and see how many articles on the Illuminati, Project MONARCH, the CIA and the child sex slave market come up! Admittedly, it’s a bit mind blowing even for a hardened, no-nonsense skeptic like me.  But I’ll just say if you want to be entertained, feel free to look them up because they’re out there. I won’t bother linking to them because most of them are garbage, no better than reading something from out of “Star” or “The National Enquirer.”

(For the record, though I am not an Illuminati believer or conspiracy theorist, I will say probably the most intelligent and thought-provoking articles I have seen on the subject of Michael Jackson and the Illuminati can be found on this website: ).

But let’s get back to reality here, and cut to the chase. Putting aside all of these wild and unprovable conspiracy theories about mind control and Illuminati sex slaves, I have to say it wouldn’t “shock” me if Michael had been a victim of child sexual abuse, and I say this only because I know how dirty Hollywood and the music business is. The truth is, it doesn’t matter if there is really a Project MONARCH, MK-Ultra, or any other government or New World Order organization-it doesn’t change the simple fact that show business in and of itself is a degnerate world filled with every kind of perversion imaginable-and those who are only too willing to exploit children!

I don’t particularly like Corey Feldman, but I have no doubt that what he had to say about the rampantness of  pedophilia in Hollywood is true:

Forget All Of The Crazy Conspiracy Theories; The Simple Truth Is That Show Business Is A Tough And Often Dirty World For Children

As a child in show business, Michael would have been prone to many of these same predators who destroyed young lives like Feldman and Corey Haim. Additionally, even before the group became famous, they were often working in some of the seediest environments imaginable for small children. So I would never be one to sit here and tell you emphatically that Michael was not sexually abused. All we can safely say is that Michael never came forward regarding any such abuse, and so therefore anything else is just so much speculation. If there was ever any abuse, I don’t feel that it came from within his family, but I’m cynical enough to say I wouldn’t put it past some of the people the Jackson 5 had to court in order to become succesful in show business. Such abuse-if it occurred-could well have transpired with or without Joe’s “assistance.” We simply don’t know.

A Note Michael Gave His Sister-In-Law Dee Dee, Urging Her To Read An Article He Had Found On Child Molestation And To "Please, Please" Share With Taj, Taryll, and TJ

This was a handwritten note that Michael gave to his sister-in-law Dee Dee when his nephews Taj, Taryll, and TJ were still very young. It was about an article Michael had read regarding sexual child abuse and incest that he found so shocking that he wanted Dee Dee to pass it on to his nephews as a warning. This note has been widely circulated on the internet, as many on both sides of the “was he or was he not a pedophile” argument have tried to theorize as to what may have motivated Michael to write it. But for me, I think it is very strong and convincing evidence that Michael was never sexually abused, at least not within the family. Judging from the tone of the letter, this seems more like someone who has just leaned something that he’s found shocking (the idea that children can even be molested by a close relative!) and wants to warn his nephews of the danger. If Michael himself had been a victim of incest, I don’t think he would have needed an article to inform him about it, nor would he be so seemingly shocked about it! He also wouldn’t have needed any article to tell him that this was something he should warn his nephews about!

Would Michael, Who In Later Life Was So Outspoken On So Many Injustices, Have Remained Silent About Something So Important...IF It had Really Happened? I Could Be Wrong, But Somehow I Doubt It

It all keeps coming back to one simple phrase: We don’t know. We can only give Michael the same benefit of the doubt that would be accorded to anyone who had never made such a claim. Given that Michael was so candid and forthright about other areas of his life where he was victimized, I’m not so sure he would have chosen to remain silent on this topic if it were true. I believe it would have come out at some point, just as his true feelings for Joe, Tommy Mottola, and many others eventually came out. Michael wasn’t scared to talk-and he wasn’t scared to destroy reputations if he had to! In his last years, especially, Michael seemed on a mission to want us to know the truth, and he wasn’t taking any prisoners.  So again, I’ll just say that while it wouldn’t shock me if he had been molested as a child, due to the circumstances I know he was in as a child star, there is simply no proof of it. What is left is a lot of speculating, crazy conspiracy theories about Illuminati sex rings, and questionable stories by questionable sources.

Yet the worst, and most damaging thing, about these alleged stories is that people will take them and run with them, using them to suit their own agendas. Just as there are a slew of online articles about Michael Jackson as a child sex slave and other such nonsense, there are just as many articles by do-gooder journalists and “would be” psychologists writing about how he fits the typical “profile” of a child abuse victim. As I’ve said before, poor Michael is probably the most scrutinized and most “diagnosed” celebrity to ever have lived. Every “expert” has an opinion on who he was; what “profile” he fit, etc. etc. I’m reminded of a very humorous thread title I once saw on a Michael Jackson forum: “Michael Jackson Was A Strawberry!” The writer meant to poke fun, but it was as apt a phrase as I’ve yet seen in summing up a media obsessed with “diagnosing” Michael Jackson.

The problem is that most of those who insist on pushing the “Michael Jackson was a victim of child sexual abuse” agenda are many of the same ones who continue to push the pedophile issue. Just as they are the ones often most insistent on pushing the gay agenda, and for the same reason. Just as a “gay” Michael Jackson makes their case much easier than a straight one (which complicates matters for them considerably) they also want it to be generally accepted that Michael was sexually abused himself so that it makes it more likely that he, as an adult, was simply continuing to perpetuate the cycle of abuse.

The absolute creme de la’ creme of ridiculous articles purporting this theory has to be this one:

This piece  is so bad (in fact, so downright ludicrous) that it actually makes Wyman’s “The Education of Michael Jackson” look like a brilliant piece of academic scholarship by comparison! This article reads like an overcooked stew of all the most outlandish tabloid stories ever written about Michael, all gathered into one convenient pot! But here is the paragraph that is most relevant to our purpose:

Jackson also shows the signs of having been sexually abused as a child, and indeed has accused his father Joseph of abusing him, as has his sister LaToya. Michael is known to have had psycho-sexual problems since early on.

How is this for something unique…a rebuttal within a rebuttal! Only this piece of tripe is so horribly wrong that I can effectively squash it within as many sentences! How exactly did Michael show signs of having been sexually abused as a child?” The author never even bothers to explain what those “signs” are; we’re just supposed to accept his/her word at face value! (Trust me, I was a sexually abused child myself, and it’s not as if we go around wearing signs that proclaim it). Michael NEVER accused his father of sexually abusing him (where they got this I have no idea, unless they are referring to the physical abuse, but by the context of this paragraph, juxtaposing that sentence with the one before, they seem to be trying to make a case for sexual abuse). And then they have the temerity to state, as if it were an unarguable fact, that Michael was “known to have pscho-sexual problems since early on.” Says who, exactly? Oh yes. This goes straight back to where we began, with Bill Wyman’s “The Education of Michael Jackson,” based on the “well researched” The Magic and the Madness and many scraps of innuendo thrown in for good measure.

Here is another article, from a self-proclaimed “expert in sexual abuse”-a psychologist who, though more sympathetic and compassionate than the moron who wrote the above piece, nevertheless proceeds to assume Michael’s guilt (based on nothing more substantial than media reports) and to “diagnose” him as a victim of child sexual abuse–mind you, without ever having met him, spoken with him, or even having met anyone who knew him!

Even if she sidesteps the issue by simply saying it is something she “suspects” it nevertheless amounts to the same thing. Readers will assume, because she is an “expert” and gives the appearance of being a balanced and rational person, that her “suspicion” is more than most likely true, or at least is reasonable to assume.

Maybe There Was Good Reason For The Surgical Masks...When You're the Most "Diagnosed" Celebrity In Show Business, That's A Lot Of Illnesses!

Fortunately, there were several readers who set her straight in the comments section. I’m not out to lynch Deborah King, who seems like a nice enough person; just one who is ignorant of the facts. But the problem goes back to something I have commented on many, many times. When you have all of these medical and psychological “experts” who never met Michael; who never knew him, but continue to report these same trite, worn out myths that have, in turn, simply been pasted and re-pasted without benefit of even the most rudimentary fact checking, and then proceed to diagnose and profile him based on these “cut and pasted” assumptions, it’s like continuously ripping a scab from a wound. The wound is ignorance. The wound is misunderstanding. And it cannot heal until these people stop trying to pick apart Michael Jackson; until they stop trying to diagnose him; stop trying to see what “profile” he fits, and instead, strive to simply see and understand him for who he was.

There Is No "One Size Fits All" Profile For Child Abuse Victims. If Michael Had Been All About Perpetuating The Cycle Of Abuse, He Would Have Been A Tyrant To His Children, Not The Loving Dad He Was

I am here to tell you that there is no “one size fits all” profile for sexual child abuse victims. The myth that all victims are likely to abuse children themselves is simply not true. In fact, all one has to do is look at Michael’s relationship with his own kids to know that he certainly was not repeating the same cycle of abuse that had been inflicted on him! If there was one good thing to take from the Martin Bashir crock, it should have been the moment when Michael said, “…and that’s why, to this day, I never lay a finger on my children!”

Instead of repeating the cycle, Michael’s childhood trauma had, in fact, quite the opposite effect: It had made him more determined than ever to not repeat his father’s mistakes! And it doesn’t take much stretch of the imagination to know that, if this was his MO, he most likely would have viewed childhood sexual abuse in the same way-as something too horrible to even think about inflicting on another child.

But let’s get back to Wyman for a minute. He says the claims of Michael having been sexually abused as a child have been “circulating for many years within the industry” (and keep in mind he was writing this in 1991, long before any allegations had surfaced) but credits Taraborelli with this info. Well, then, where did these claims originate with Taraborelli, and how? I did some digging to see if I could find those answers. In this transcript from the VH1 special “The Secret Childhood of Michael Jackson” Taraborelli and others speak of what they considered to be Michael’s childhood sexual abuse:


Taraborelli Confessed In "The Secret Childhood of Michael Jackson" That His "Theory" In 1991 Was To Prove Michael Jackson Asexual...He Apparently Later Changed His Mind About Michael And LMP

Although I cannot paste this transcript, I can pretty much give you the gist of it. Taraborelli, Leiberman, and others basically spend about three-quarters of the time hashing out a lot of information that has by now pretty much become common knowledge. We know about the so-called “group gropes” (when the older brothers, Jackie and Jermaine, were bringing groupies into the room where Michael and Marlon were pretending to be asleep, but most likely watching and listening); about Joe Jackson’s liasons; about the alleged story of being locked in a room with two prostitutes. Perhaps all of this was quite revealing and shocking stuff back in ’91; perhaps thanks to twenty years’ worth of constant repetition, we have become desensitized to just how traumatic some of these things may have been for young Michael, though to be honest, I never bought that the girls coming into the room with his brothers was really that traumatic for him. In later years, he would often just laugh about those stories, and even the American Dream movie depicted those scenes in a very humorous way, with little Michael and Marlon pulling a very sneaky prank on Jermaine’s “lady friend.”  Technically speaking, however, this was a form of child sexual abuse (just as forcing him to work in strip clubs at age seven) because it involved exposing an underaged child to adult sex.

Child sexual abuse is an especially complicated form of abuse because of its layers of guilt and shame. It’s important to recognize that sexual abuse doesn’t always involve body contact. Exposing a child to sexual situations or material is sexually abusive, whether or not touching is involved.

By the above definition, Michael was being sexually abused-and these are not stories that are questionable or open to dispute. These were all incidents that have been repeatedly corroborated and that Michael himself spoke openly about.

But only Michael could really say to what extent he was emotionally scarred from these experiences-or not. Taraborelli confesses in this interview that he developed a “theory” that Michael became asexual as a result of these experiences. Well, the problem you have once a writer/journalist develops a theory is that their research from then on is going to be carried out with an eye toward proving that theory-sometimes at the expense of keeping an open mind (which shouldn’t happen, but we are human, after all).

“Group gropes” is indeed an interesting term, as it seems to imply that there might have been more to these bedroom groupie encounters than just lying there watching and listening. But I have no idea where David Walsh got that term, or how much signifigance to attach to it.

Theresa Gonsalves is later quoted in the program as saying Michael had shared a “secret” with her regarding a childhood trauma that kept him from wanting to be intimate with anyone. But I know personally, from the conversation I had with Theresa in 2010, that both VH1 and Taraborelli twisted her version of events. There were some elements of truth in it (for example, the Bible story) but the story I heard (and the one she has told in her book Remember The Time)was certainly a far cry from this conflicted, sexually confused young man that Taraborelli and others were so intent to portray.

While I have always believed that Michael was, to some extent, sexually conflicted due to his Jehovah’s Witness upbringing, coupled with the events that have been discussed, I really believe that writers like Taraborelli and shows like “The Secret Childhood of Michael Jackson” have grossly exaggerated their effects on him. I’ve never bought into the whole “Michael was a virgin until age 35” myth. And anyone who believes that should go back to the Oprah interview, and watch his reaction when Oprah asks, “Are you a virgin?”


This was, hands down, the most masterful skirting of an embarrassing question I have ever heard! “I’m a gentleman,” he said, tactfully. But it was far more revealing than just a cute answer. It was, quite simply, a charming way to answer “No” to the question while managing to not look like a total horn dog in the process-and millions of fan girls fell in love, all over again!

But if “The Education of Michael Jackson” proves anything, it’s that the forces were already well in place that would set the stage for Michael’s downfall. Michael was receiving his education in how completely the media and the agendas of a few journalists can tear a person down. The “de-sexing” of Michael Jackson would become an important part of that process.  More to come in Part Three.

25 thoughts on “Rebutting Wyman and "The Education of Michael Jackson"-Part Two”

  1. Great article, Raven. I also doubt very much that Michael was sexually abused in a physical way. I think he would have been a different person and he would have been very outspoken about it in later years like he was on other issues. He cared so much for the suffering of children, so this would have been his biggest concern.
    And regarding Diana Ross: If she ever had approached him as a minor in an inappropriate way, he never would have called her a friend later and mentioned her in his will to care for his children.
    There is so much nonsense in the public. I wonder how people still regard Taraborelli as a serious biographer when he was speculating so much around in this tabloid manner, especially about things that are none of his business because they are private.

    1. That is a very good point, Susanne. This was a woman that Michael named in his will to be the guardian of his children-his 2nd choice after Katherine. I don’t think he would have even thought about naming her if there was any question of her moral character-not with two young sons! Even if he’d had a good time with her himself (let’s just say for the sake of argument) he wouldn’t have subjected his sons to it; his fatherly instincts would have kicked in and said, “Uh uh. This won’t happen.”

  2. You forgot the story in Christopher Andersen book Michael Jackson Unauthorized. Andersen did an interview with someone (I don’t remember the name) who claimed that Johnny Jackson told him, in the seventies, that he saw MJ and a male adult both naked and aroused in 1968.

    1. Actually, I didn’t even know that story! Thanks for filling me in. Do you think that witness is a credible source?

      1. No, I don’t remember his name, I have to check the book, but from what I remember it’s someone who had multiple lawsuits against the Jacksons.
        Anyway, he claimed that someone told him something 20 years ago, I don’t think it’s reliable.

        1. @shelly
          If you don’t think that is reliable then why bring up the thing at all in the first place? I have seen that you do this kind of things a lot. Go around and bring up nasty and shocking fiction about Michael. If you don’t know if they are true or not or if you think they are lies, which they are, then out of respect in Michael memory, keep them for yourself.

          1. I think what she probably meant was that since my article was discussing stories of his possible/alleged childhood sexual abuse (mostly from questionable sources, as already noted) that this was yet another one that could be added to that list. That was how I took it, anyway.

          2. I’m sorry Raven but i personally would delete such comment. Since you yourself said in your post that most of the things that those people, God make them, claim, we don’t know if are true, then it is an insult to Michael and people in general to even bring them up or speculate about them. They have nothing to do with the allegations,to defend Michael from haters, those are disgusting claims made by even more disgusting individuals who apparently take pleasure from imagining young boys and adults men together.

            And i’m sorry if i sound harsh, you know that i read your blog and i respect what you have to say, but this is how i feel when i hear or read stories of this kind. Those stories have a place alright. In the sewers.

          3. I respect what you’re saying but as a general rule I usually won’t delete comments as long as they are contributing in some constructive way to the topic at hand (obvious troll posts are a different story, of course). I understand that not all readers will agree on some issues. I try to let everyone have their say without too much interference, unless things get “too” heated, lol. I just felt this was an important issue brought up in Wyman’s article that needs to be addressed because if indeed those stories have been “circulating for years” it’s worth examining where they came from and how they started. A lot of haters, or even those who are sympathetic but want to diagnose the cause of his “issues”-like many of those doctors and psychologists I discussed who are responsible for many of of these damaging articles-will take reports like that at face value, without really bothering to look into the stories themselves-where they came from, who started them, and why. I think being aware of this information gives fans that much more ammunition against the tide of ignorance.

          4. I said that because Email chose to speak about that subject and it’s probably one of the most important because it allegedly came from people who were close to him.
            I never posted disgusting fiction about MJ unless we are speaking about the 2005 trial or the tabloids.

          5. I probably should clarify for those who don’t know: Emailraven is a username I go by on the MJ IMDB board.

            I don’t use that name anywhere else, so some people might be confused by the reference.

  3. For some there’s nothing more tantalizing than the murky unknown of that place behind closed doors. All journalists of questionable character and integrity seem to dance and giggle with mind numbing adolescent glee when there is the potential of writing or should I say inventing tra$h in regard to this subject about a public figure, especially when it came to Michael!!! What’s even sadder is the circular feeding frenzy that exists between the media and the general public who continue to buy into and obsess over this kind of moronic trash. Such obsessions will never fail to sicken me to the core!! I wish the “journalists” you have mentioned who endlessly feel the need to “profile” and psychoanalyze Michael Jackson would take a step back and check their own hearts, minds and actions and stop analyzing someone they never really knew. Oprah Winfrey has said that she felt embarrassed asking Michael if he was a “virgin” and then shamelessly justifies it by saying “it’s what the public wants to know.” Or words to that effect. That excuse never ceases to annoy!! Of course just because many in the public want to know doesn’t mean they have the right to know. Although Michael handled it very well he shouldn’t have been asked such a question in the first place.

    By the way, I’m very glad that you stated that you don’t buy into the Illuminati and conspiracy theory nonsense. I know there are some blogs out there that feed off of that kind of madness and are hell bent on convincing the “world” that only they possess the truth about Michael’s “real” message and life from the cradle and beyond. Good grief!!! The problem with this kind of writing is that the sky is the limit as to how far they want to spin certain conspiracy theories. And of course such writers don’t really have to prove anything because they cherry pick “facts” to support outrageous claims in the name of being the true protectors of Michael’s legacy. Forgive me for bringing this kind of thing up, it’s just that such fiction writing (cause that’s what it ends up being) in many ways is no different than what the tabs did to Michael over several decades with out blinking an eye. Of course the tabs were tearing down Michael while certain bloggers claim to be lifting him up and defending him with their conspiracy theory stories. Despite being “on-Michael’s-side,” so to speak, I feel they are doing just as much of a disservice to MJ’s memory as the Wyman’s and Taraborrelli’s of the world by spinning and promoting false stories about him.

    1. My MO from the beginning has always been that I am only interested in what can be factually proven or, at the very least, conclusions that can be arrived at from a preponderance of actual evidence. Some of the Illuminati/New World Order stuff is intriguing in the sense that it definitely makes you wonder, but for the most part, all of it just sounds too far fetched for me to really get my hands around it. The blog that I linked to in the article,, is probably, like I said, one of the more intelligent writers on the subject, and he is very sympathetic towards Michael because he sincerely believes Michael was trying to get out of it and paid the price with his life (he is not so sympathetic towards the artists he thinks are still a part of it, like Jay-Z). He believes that Eminem is on the fence, and may go down the same path as Michael.

      It is all very interesting reading but for me that’s pretty much where the line is drawn. It just all sounds like so much sci-fi to me.

  4. Interesting post and comments re Illuminati and conspiracy theories. Some bloggers who espouse these claims are also birthers and truthers claiming the US government was behind the WTC bombing and our President is not a US citizen (one I have knowledge of has even called him a “traitor”)! And it’s a shame when they use Michael’s name to promote their own agendae. No better than medialoid tripping over Michael’s name to sell a “death” house or refer to an “MJ” drug being pulled from the market. Off topic, however, it appears of late that Michael’s entire History tour is on YT in HD no less. No need to wait for some studio to release! Having viewed only bits and pieces in the past, I’m overjoyed to see the entire 2 hour live tour; this is Michael’s legacy which will stay in our memories, not the nonsensical BS of conpiratorial bloggers who have little else to do with their days. Also agree, it is sci-fi nonsense.

  5. June said, “And it’s a shame when they use Michael’s name to promote their own agendae.”

    Absolutely. This is the saddest, most hypocritical and most cynical side of such a mind set. Such writers will go to great lengths aggressively criticizing others for using Michael’s name for personal gain and fail to realize they do the same themselves. Maybe not monetary gain but by using MJ as a spring board to promote an often extremist agenda that has nothing to do with Michael what so ever, then misrepresenting what Michael believed or didn’t believe regarding that agenda. Such is done with a certain amount of impunity since MJ is not here to directly refute such misrepresentations and any kind of real research is inconvenient at best so the sky is the limit. Michael is the bait to bring the internet audience in. No bait. Little or no audience. Same old story. Sad.

    As for the History tour on YT I wonder if that’s available as a result of the material that was stolen from Sony? To be able to see the 2 hour tour in its entirety would be HEAVEN!! And though I’m not a fan of Sony it will also end up being a guilty pleasure if it is in fact “stolen.” Ugh…:-(

  6. Hi ladies, sorry I haven’t been able to check in before now.

    Interesting point about how people use Michael’s name to promote so many agendas. That reminds me that in the next few days, I’m going to be doing a story on the origin of the Fatboy Slim song “Michael Jackson.” It’s interesting because that song was, in turn, based on an earlier song by Negativeland which basically included a long, long, SUPER long list of musicians damned to Hell for supposedly “ruining” music…Michael’s was just one name among many very well known artists. But guess whose name was used as the title of the song? Yep. They knew which name would get the most ears to perk up!

    We have most of the HIStory tour already. My bf is a notorious downloader (shhh, don’t tell Sony or SOPA, lol!). Copenhagen and Munich are my two favorite shows, but Auckland is actually interesting in a lot of ways because that one wasn’t quite as smooth or polished as a lot of his shows had become by that point. There was a lot of stuff that was a bit “off”-late starts; mess ups, that sort of thing. Not anything too major, but enough to show that even “The Perfectionist” had his occasional off nights. For me, it’s interesting because we rarely see that sort of thing from an MJ concert.

    1. One of the reasons I like the Auckland concerts is Michael singing live “Come together” etc.

      He did so much better than the Beatles themselves on that one … always.

      1. Yeah, like I said, Auckland to me is interesting. It’s a little rawer than some of his other HIStory shows, but I like it.

  7. Strange that many entertainers who called Michael a “sell out” are the very ones who today sell computers, sodas, automobiles, beer, chewing gum and anything else they can get a contract for. The same whose agents have them on the books for potential commercial projects. If Michael did it first it was wrong and if he did it second he was stealing.

  8. What strikes me as odd is the letter written by Michael, to the mother of the “Three T’s”: Enid. Incest is a topic that has been around since the beginning of mankind. The fact that it occurs in many families is not an anomaly. Michael has never said that he was a victim of incest by anyone growing up. Nor has he said that he was molested by anyone. At the same time though, for those of us who have never been molested, it is not an unheard of topic. I have three boys, and if anyone of my family members had sent this note to me, it would be disturbing. As Michael has said… “who is jack the ripper in the room?” So,since he did not mention molestation in general, but specifically targeted the issue of incest: who is “Jack The Ripper” in the family, that he could be referencing? I have all nephews and i would not see the purpose of sending this type of information to anyone of my sisters. That would be strange. And if i did send this type of information off, to my sister’s… then finger pointing could begin, starting a rift in the family. It was like an ominous warning, that someone in the family shouldn’t be trusted. That would never cross my mind. Obviously i, like most people are well aware that incest exists, and there are volumes of information on the topic, and if i was interested then i would research the topic, not research members in my own family,unless there was reason to.

    1. Small correction: That would have been Dee Dee, not Enid (Enid was Jackie’s wife). But yes, those are interesting points raised. My take on it was more from the position that Michael himself seemed (judging by the note) to be shocked by what the article suggested, which I don’t think would have been the case if he was already well aware that such things go on in families.

      But then again, there is also the possibility that he wasn’t comfortable with addressing the issue directly to his nephews, and thought the article would be a safer way to do it.

  9. So who excatly did Michael have sex with before Lisa Marie? Both Brooke Shields and Tatum O’Neil both denied their relationship with Michael was sexual.

  10. RE: the alleged Jermaine story about Joe Jackson setting up late night business meetings, Michael himself relays a similar story in Schmuley Boteach’s book The Michael Jacksons Tapes (he says NOTHING about any abuse).

  11. Here’s my take on this :

    For starters, it doesn’t take much to read between the lines about the horrendous dysfunction of the entire family …. Something had to go down prior to the fame that scarred each sibling for life. Also, I heard rumors that Taj, Tito’s eldest son (I believe) was molested by a family member on Dee Dee’s side, therefore the reasoning behind the note. But this is what I find to be odd – out of ALL of his nieces & nephews, he only publicly dealt with a few – Brandi (Jackie’s Daughter) & 3T (Tito’s Sons). I find this to be strange because he never really dealt with Rebbie’s, Jermaine’s, Marlon’s, nor Randy’s kids publicly. Also, with that note, shouldn’t ALL of his nieces & nephews parents be informed about this startling piece of information? Why only dictate it to one set of nephews & not all? Also, I know that this isn’t on topic, but did you know that Jackie’s the ONLY sibling receiving monthly payments from Michael’s estate? No other family member besides Katherine, TJ (which is also interesting), & his children are receiving money from his estate but Jackie. This raises a few questions from myself, because it kinda seems yo me that Jackie & Tito (mostly Jackie) either treated him the best out of all of the siblings OR knows something pretty deep about MJ that the others don’t … Interesting, but RIP KING !

Leave a Reply