Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 3

Wade-Robson-Michael-Jackson (1)I’ll just start off this post by saying, no, I haven’t dropped off the planet, lol.  I never intended that it would be over two weeks between these posts, but please bear with me as it’s “that” time of the year again, when end of semester and start of fall semester duties keep me certifiably insane. Now with my excuses and apologies out of the way, let’s pick up this unpleasant-but necessary-business where we left off.

One of the things I said I would be discussing in this series is the true nature of Michael’s relationships with children-or at least what I know to be true based on actual fact, evidence, and testimony.

Why is this important? Well, it is important because I have many casual readers who come across this site in researching Michael Jackson. And, based on my stats, I also know there are some who come here as a result of having typed Wade Robson’s  name into their search engines. Thus, I know there are people researching this topic. Since Wade’s recent allegations have brought the topic back into focus, and since I know there are people researching these allegations, it’s important that they get some informed facts before falling into the clutches of the hater sites, who will be only too happy to distort that truth and brainwash them.

Haters Love To Zero In On These Few Moments of Michael And Jordan Chandler At The 1993 Monaco Awards...
Haters Love To Zero In On These Few Moments of Michael And Jordan Chandler At The 1993 Monaco Awards…

Even those who have only a casual knowledge of Michael-regardless of whether they believe in his guilt or innocence-are generally aware that his friendships with children were, at the very least, the subject of much ridicule and speculation. What about those sleepovers? What about this guy who had an amusement park in his own back yard? What about all these families who had apparent, lavish gifts and trips around the world? And, most importantly, even though Michael Jackson was never charged with any crime and was acquitted on all fourteen counts in 2005-what about all this alleged smoke? Settlements, rumors of settlements, whispers of astronomical sums of money paid for “silence”?

...What They Conventionally Fail To Mention is That It Was Jordan's Sister Lily Who Had ALL The Attention That Night!
…What They Conveniently Fail To Mention is That It Was Jordan’s Sister Lily Who Had ALL The Attention That Night!

Before we even get into all of that, it is important to look first at the foundation of where it all began. My goal here is to, first if all, separate some of the myths from the reality. While researching Michael over the past four years, I have seen and read all of the myths that passionate advocates on BOTH sides continue to perpetuate. The problem is that I don’t think either side’s well worn talking points-either from haters or well meaning fans-is hitting upon the truth. And there is good reason for that. The agenda of haters is to prove him guilty at all costs. But in their passionate haste to promote their agenda, they overlook and twist a lot of blatant facts, or cherry pick facts to suit their narrative. But fans are often just as guilty of some very fallacious arguments.

Jackson-at-Neverland-with-Kids--442To the person whose knowledge of Michael Jackson goes no deeper than the punch lines of Jay Leno or Chris Rock, there is a lingering , caricature image of an eccentric weirdo who randomly called up kids and “special friends” to come sleep over. An entire cult was constructed around this perceived image of wild slumber parties, showering and bathing with boys, passing around the old “Jesus Juice” and…well, you know the rest.

The truth was that Michael very seldom had random kids in and out of Neverland, unless they were the groups of underprivileged or terminally ill kids who were sometimes invited for supervised day visits at the amusement park and arcade. The kids who stayed the night-regardless of where they slept-were almost always relatives or the children of families he knew well. If anything, it was entire families-not just the kids-who were invited to Neverland and ended up crashing there.

So, okay, most rock stars have women, groupies, and wild drug parties and orgies. Michael, it seemed, was into families. Lots of families. I am joking, in part, but I will get into some of the complex reasons behind this in due order.

The more savvy among MJ detractors have finally recognized this fact, but only use it as further evidence that Michael was grooming these families to get to their children-more specifically, their sons.

On the other hand, there are many fans who fall into the trap of using the Michael-was-pure-as-the-driven-snow argument. He  was simply trying to recreate the childhood he never had. He was being Peter Pan. He was being Jesus-like.

All of the above is true, to a point. But it still lacks a lot in satisfactorily explaining just how Michael got himself into some of the messes that he did with some of these people. And trust me, any guy who has over 1800 pornographic images hidden away in his bedroom isn’t hoarding those because he’s pure as the driven snow.

with kidsSo please be forewarned. I mentioned in the last post that some of my views-as well as some of the facts I’m going to share-may be controversial. But I believe they are important if we are to fully understand how Michael ended up in a position to be accused of these crimes. It may mean accepting that Michael wasn’t necessarily always-100%-“pure as driven snow.” But if that means also proving he wasn’t a criminal, then those who have a problem with it will just have to deal with it, because it is what it is.

Many believe that the start of Michael’s problems can all be traced back to that day in May of 1992 when, finding himself broken down on Wilshire Boulevard, he ended up-as fate would have it-at the Rent-A-Wreck shop owned by David Schwartz. A piece of divine action (make that “divinity of Hell” as Shakespeare’s Iago said) that would bring the Chandler family into his life.

I’ve heard it often argued-and have made the point myself-that if there had never been the Chandler case-and, more aptly, the Chandler settlement-then there would have certainly been no Arvizo case. Nor would we have had the long trail of “phantom cases” that have tried to attach themselves to Michael’s name ever since, including these most recent allegations from Wade Robson.

But if it all started with the Chandlers-and more specifically, with Evan Chandler, the driven father who became determined to bring down Michael Jackson at all costs-what on earth would have compelled this man to just come up with such an accusation out of the blue? After all, accusing someone of molesting their child is a pretty darn serious accusation.

This is where the “He’s guilty” party will come in and say, “Because Evan saw this, and heard this, blah blah blah.” But it’s also where the defenders will come in and say, “Evan cooked this whole thing up with the aid of his crooked attorney Barry Rothman.”

Personally, while I have believed unwaveringly in Michael’s innocence ever since I began researching this case, it simply never seemed plausible to me that anyone-no matter how bad he hated someone, or wanted to ruin someone, whether to get revenge for a movie deal or anything else-would just come up with these kinds of accusations off the cuff and expect to be believed. As bogus as I felt the Chandler allegations were, this was one tiny detail that continued to nag at me. I felt there must have been some seed planted, even long before this, that would have given Evan the idea that such an accusation was not only plausible, but would be given serious consideration.

Evan Chandler-Hardly A Saint. But Not The Lone Villain, Either.
Evan Chandler-Hardly A Saint. But Not The Lone Villain, Either.

Ever hear of the chicken and the egg? It’s a frustrating riddle for a good reason. Precisely because there is no true point of beginning. In the case of Evan Chandler, the one thing that kept nagging at me for a long time was exactly this kind of riddle. Perhaps it did all begin with Evan Chandler, but-if we are to assume Michael was completely innocent-then where in the world did such a heinous idea-such a heinous plot-spring from? In other words where did this inspiration come from to suddenly start accusing Michael Jackson of being a child molestor? For all that it’s easy to paint Evan Chandler as a villain twirling his mustache, the truth, I fear, is far more complex.

Could it be that there were already suspicions swirling in certain circles about Michael, even long before the Chandler case? Or perhaps more accurately, a plot already in place to bring these accusations upon him?

I got my first hint last year, when I decided to rebut an article written by Bill Wyman titled “I Want Me Back: The Education of Michael Jackson.”  Wyman (not to be confused with The Rolling Stones bassist by the same name) is a music critic who has long been bent on diminishing Michael Jackson’s cultural impact, and has written some pretty vitriolic hit pieces. This one in particular, however, was published in the February 06, 1992 issue of The Chicago Tribune. The article’s many inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods was one reason I felt compelled to write my own rebuttal.

But here are two key passages that really stood out:

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).

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/i-want-me-back-the-education-of-michael-jackson/Content?oid=879081

And…

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.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/i-want-me-back-the-education-of-michael-jackson/Content?oid=879081

Two things become obvious from reading this piece. One is that the attempt to emasculate and “de-sex” Michael Jackson was already underway as early as 1992, and Taraborelli was perhaps one of the key players in firmly entrenching the idea into the public consciousness that Michael was somehow asexual or, at the very least, curiously lacking in sexual experience with women(though he later came to modify his hard line stance on this issue). But far more disturbingly, it seems this may also have been setting the intial stages to bring in (and make credible) accusations of gay pedophilia. Wyman’s comments are certainly telling, revealing that at the very least, there were certainly clouds of suspicion regarding Michael’s friendships with boys well before he even met the Chandlers. Then again, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Even as a casual fan in those days, I knew that tongues had been wagging at least ever since as far back as when he had attended the Grammy’s holding Brooke Shield’s hand with one arm, and toting Emmanuel Lewis in the other.

But it gets better.

Victor Gutierrez
Victor Gutierrez

A man named Victor Gutierrez, who has some very suspicious ties himself to NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) had been doggedly investigating Michael, determined to “out” him as a pedophile since at least 1986 (and possibly earlier).

Gutierrez, as we know, would later go on to write a filthy fantasy novel titled “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” in which it seems he simply transferred all of his own fantasies about Michael into a fictional epistolary account by Jordan Chandler. He would also eventually be sued by Michael for slander, over the claim of a video tape that was never produced, and opted to return to his native Chile rather than fork over the 2.7 million he was ordered by court to pay Michael.

Now, all of the above is fairly common knowledge to anyone who has invested much time into researching the Michael Jackson allegations. What I don’t think is as well known is just how far back Gutierrez’s quest goes-or just why it became such an obsessed calling for him to somehow associate Michael with pedophilia.

This German article that appeared in the publication taz.de in April 2005 is very telling.

http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170

Utilizing the ever handy “translate” feature, let’s look at just a few passages that emphasize why I think this little known article just may be one of the biggest keys to understanding how and why the accusations against Michael just may have their roots with this man and his NAMBLA cronies:

First of all, note the title and the many references to Michael and Jordan as “a couple.” If this is supposed to be an account of child sexual abuse-which is exactly what it would be if true-then why is it cloaked in the flowery language and euphemisms usually reserved for adult heterosexual or homosexual relationships? Easy. Because this is the kind of language that pedophiles use all the time in order to justify their relationships with children. Their literature is littered with references to relationships between men and boys as “love” and describing such liasons as “a couple,” all in an attempt to make their perversions seem as perfectly natural as any adult hetero or homo relationship.

Jordan Chandler Never Kept A Diary. This Book Was Gutierrez's Fantasy-Not Jordan's Reality. And That Is Precisely What Is So Sick About It.
Jordan Chandler Never Kept A Diary. This Book Was Gutierrez’s Fantasy-Not Jordan’s Reality. And That Is Precisely What Is So Sick About It.

While Gutierrez claims himself to be heterosexual in the piece, he seems all too comfortably steeped in the knowledge and language of the NAMBLA culture. Really, that doesn’t surprise me, either. Pedophiles are perfectly capable of having adult relationships-and a gay pedophile is certainly capable of adult heterosexual relationships.

And what should we make of these passages? Again, I am utilizing the English translation, and have highlighted the passages in question:

In 1986, he should tell of a congress of the North American Man Boy Love Association. The so-called NAMBLA originated in the late seventies. First, the “support group for relations between the generations” was prominently promoted by Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg, then quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement. At the Congress Gutierrez hears for the first time: “Michael is one of us.”A pedophile. “Jackson was traded there as an idol, as a hope for social acceptance.”

Gutiérrez quit his job at the newspaper, talking to Jackson’s staff interviewed the first boy. He soon running out of money for research.He sold his car, saving on food. He learns: There are different types of pedophiles, it is as old as mankind, not all of their varieties are terrible crimes. Víctor Gutiérrez says: “In the five months of their relationship Michael Jackson and Jordie Chandler was happy it was love..”

The 23 August 1993, a Monday is D-Day. The world to know: Michael Jackson is said to have abused a child. Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s attorney, Michael calls in Thailand and teaches him the bad news.”Everyone in the world knows that I love children. I hurt nobody,” Jackson’s reaction. He throws vases against the wall, refusing to eat.

First of all, how did Gutierrez even manage to gain access into a NAMBLA conference, as the organization is noted for keeping a very low and secretive profile? That is a question that has already been investigated in much depth here:

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/victor-gutierrez-behind-the-scene-of-michael-jacksons-case/

I cannot add much more here to the excellent research that Helena has already done, except to say that I agree something seems very suspect. It just doesn’t seem likely that Gutierrez could possibly have gained entry into this conference, much less infiltrated their ranks as successfully as he did, without being a member or at least having some very deep connections to those within. Otherwise, I just don’t buy that he could have infiltrated their ranks, no matter how clever of an investigative reporter he thinks he is-or how clever of an FBI investigator he “claims” to be. Besides, the one thing I keep coming back to is that his own language and choice of words gives his game away.

It is very possible that Michael’s name may have been bandied about at this meeting. But by whom? And even if it was, is that irrefutable proof? Hollywood is a town that loves to gossip and speculate about the private lives of its most famous inhabitants. Sometimes those rumors prove to be true. But just as often, they can be false. And in this case, all it may have taken was one or two dirty minds to plant the seed.

What is most telling is the statement that members of NAMBLA were looking to Michael as a “hero” and as a “hope for social acceptance.” Every group that is on the outer fringes of what is socially acceptable looks to possible role models in celebrities, who are seen as potential champions for their cause. This isn’t a new practice. Long before gays were socially accepted into the mainstream, they looked to gay celebrities or rumored gay celebrities to help champion their recognition for civil rights and social acceptance. The poet Walt Whitman is an example. Today, he is often celebrated as a gay poet and is generally revered, especially by gay artists and writers, as “one of us.” Yet the truth is that Whitman never said he was attracted to men, and there is no evidence that he ever had an actual homosexual romance-with anyone. If there were indeed male lovers in his life, they were kept so lowkey that, to this day, history has no idea of their names. Much of the belief about Whitman’s sexuality has actually been based on conjecture due to the fact that his poetry often contained what seemed like very homo erotic verse. Perhaps Whitman was homosexual; perhaps not. Perhaps (more likely) he may well have been a closeted homosexual who never acted on his impulses. But the reality is that we simply don’t know.

The Great American Poet Walt Whitman Was, Like Michael Jackson, An Individual Whose Sexual Legacy May Have Been Falsely Determined By Self Interest Groups
The Great American Poet Walt Whitman Was, Like Michael Jackson, An Individual Whose Sexual Legacy May Have Been Falsely Determined By Self Interest Groups

And we may never really know because Whitman’s legacy, for better or worse, was re-written in the 1950’s when a generation of poets known as The Beats (among them one of NAMBLA’s own rumored founders, Allen Ginsberg) openly embraced Whitman as their role model. In short, they needed a hero, and Whitman quite conveniently fit the bill.

Allen Ginsberg, Great American Poet, Colorful and Controversial...And Rumored To Be A NAMBLA Founding Member
Allen Ginsberg, Great American Poet, Colorful and Controversial…And Rumored To Be A NAMBLA Founding Member

Of course, whether or not Whitman was a gay man is really beside the point. I could care less whether he was or wasn’t because it’s simply not an issue. He was one of America’s greatest poets, regardless. For that matter, I am a huge fan of Allen Ginsberg’s work and still teach his epic and revolutionary work Howl at least once every academic year. But given that an entire generation, one that came of age more than fifty years after Whitman’s passing, declared him as an openly gay icon and managed to re-write his reputation so extensively that, to this day, Whitman is often referred to unblinkingly as “a gay poet”  it doesn’t seem too far fetched to think that a group of equally determined pedophiles could do the same to Michael Jackson.

It’s no secret that this organization has been lobbying hard for years to have pedophilia socially accepted and brought into the mainstream of society in the same way that gays have been. They have also lobbied hard to have pedophilia officially re-classified as a sexual orientation, rather than a mental illness.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and just say that I do believe there is some validity to this argument. I believe it is very scientifically likely that  sexual attraction to children is an orientation. For sure, pedophiles can no more control being what they are than any straight or gay person-and evidence has shown that they usually cannot control their urges. For sure, I don’t think any human being consciously says, “This is who/what I want to be.” The problem, however, is that part of acting upon their natural urges involves preying upon people-children-who are not yet physically or mentally mature enough to make these kinds of choices regarding their bodies. We know this. We have heard it repeated often enough: The reason sex between an adult and a child is wrong is because it is an abuse of power. Children-even teenagers-are not mature enough to make these kinds of decisions. And no parent is going to willingly consent to their child being abused by a predator (that is, if they are any kind of parent at all).

For this reason, I can’t seriously see pedophilia ever becoming legal or accepted, unless, God forbid, we one day live in such a degenerate society that all morals and values as we know them have been completely overturned. I suppose it could happen. Look at the ancient Greeks. A few thousand years can change a lot of things. But let me reel this back in before I drift too far afield.

The fact is, gays have fought a long and hard won battle for acceptance (and one that remains ongoing). But gay men and women never asked for more than the right to love other, adult gay men and women. Which is precisely why gays, for the most part, have now far distanced themselves from NAMBLA and their disgusting agenda.

eltonBut one thing we do know: The increasing prevalence of openly gay celebrities has had a far reaching impact in making gay people more acceptable in the mainstream. Today, we can pass an article on the news stand about Elton John and his husband having a baby, and it doesn’t raise an eyebrow. Even twenty to thirty years ago, it would have been a very different story. Jodie Foster can make a “coming out” speech at the Golden Globes, and is applauded. Ellen DeGeneres can joke on national TV about coming home to her wife, and middle America doesn’t even glance up from its TV trays.

Pedophiles have similarly long hoped to find a beloved, mainstream celebrity who might likewise help assimilate them and their “orientation” into mainstream acceptance. But it simply hasn’t been as easy for them. While pedophiles abound in Hollywood, you’re not going to find too many willing to step up to the plate and admit it willingly. The very heinous nature of pedophilia and what it involves is enough to ensure that it isn’t going to be socially or legally accepted anytime soon-and nor is any big time actor, musician, director or writer apt to risk his/her entire reputation and career just to further advance “the cause.”

For whatever reason, Gutierrez and his NAMBLA cronies had latched onto Michael as a prime candidate-their desired “poster boy” and advocate-as early as Michael’s initial Thriller success. And, just as some gay people often reserve their harshest judgement and bitterest criticism for suspected gay celebrities who remain “in the closet” I believe sincerely that the very reason some of these people such as Gutierrez have gone after Michael with such a vengeance-and eventually turned on him so bitterly-was his refusal to play the part. Even to this day, I know for a fact that some of Michael’s most bitter and outspoken detractors on the internet are actually pedophile advocates who remain outraged-not by his perceived or alleged “crimes,” but rather by the fact that he staunchly denied them-and that his fans continue to staunchly deny them, as well. If I had a dime for every time some detractor said something to the effect of, “Just accept that he was a talented genius but also a pedophile,” I would have some richly lined pockets by now. Their agenda is very apparent. Through sheer bullying and deceptively feigning concern for Michael’s “victims” their true outrage stems from the denial of fans, rather than their own professed belief that Michael was a pedophile. Why is that? These people will invest more time, energy, and hours into fighting with Michael Jackson fans on the internet than they will ever spend advocating for true victims. And that is a fact.

It Is NOT Michael's Perceived "Crimes" That Arouses The Ire Of Haters On The Internet, But Rather, The Continued Refusal Of Fans To Accept Their Agenda. This Is FACT.
It Is NOT Michael’s Perceived “Crimes” That Arouses The Ire Of Haters On The Internet, But Rather, The Continued Refusal Of Fans To Accept Their Agenda. This Is FACT.

If there was ever any doubt concerning the passionate drive to “out” Michael Jackson by the NAMBLA and PIE (Pedophile Information Exchange)faction (regardless of how flimsy the actual evidence on which they based their suspicions), those doubts were forever laid to rest when a convicted pedophile named Thomas O’Carroll, writing under the pseudonym Carl Tom, attempted in 2010 to publish and distribute what was intended (i.e, advertised and promoted) as a very “sympathetic” expose of  Michael Jackson’s relationships with underaged boys, Dangerous Liaisons. In fact, this site’s stats reached its first record peak on May 17, 2010-the day after I posted this piece revealing Carl Tom’s true identity:

http://old.allforloveblog.com/?p=2379

What became even more disturbing in the aftermath was the number of scholars and academics who immediately began circling the wagons in defense of this book. Here, for example, is a typical review from J. Michael Bailey of Northwest University:

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/MJOCarrollReview.pdf

A couple of things I find interesting about this review (and others like it): While openly admitting that the book is written by a pedophile, and a convicted distributor of child pornography, there seems almost no question of the author’s own motives for writing this book, and in fact, Bailey seems almost downright sympathetic to O’Carroll when he writes:

O’Carroll believes that at times Jackson flaunted his pedophilia
because, as one of the most famous, beloved, and wealthiest
men in the world, he could. O’Carroll is disappointed that Jackson passed up the opportunity publicly to defend his pedophilia,
choosing instead to deny it. However, had Jackson done the
former, it is difficult to imagine any end other than the rapid
deterioration of his legacy. Jackson was not as thoughtful or
articulate as O’Carroll, whose mission is as quixotic as they
come.

Does anyone find this last bit as disturbing as I do? I mean, God forbid that Michael should not be as “thoughtful or articulate” as this  monster who openly engaged in the trafficking of child pornography!

There are several other passages that eerily echo what has become some of the MJ detractors’ most ardent and familiar talking points when attempting to brainwash Michael Jackson fans that if they would simply accept Michael as a pedophile, and reject the idea that being such made him a monster, all would be forgiven and society as a whole would be a much better and happier place as a result. I am paraphrasing, of course, but this is truly the gist of his last few paragraphs.

As a scholar myself and someone who comes from an academic background, I am by turns torn, saddened and yet not surprised by the reaction this book elicited. I, too, am opposed to censorship and the rejection of a free exchange of ideas. Yet I also know that part a scholar’s job is to search for knowledge and truth. Embracing a blind acceptance of this book just because it promotes a controversial view-without regard for the validity of its contents or how it might help cement an unfounded view of its subject-did not seem to enter into the equation of this review at all.

To my knowledge, Troubador Press pulled the distribution of the book a few weeks after O’Carroll’s identity became known (though they denied that the campaign of MJ fans had anything to do with that decision)and Amazon subsequently axed it as part of a general crackdown on books promoting pedophilia-for a little while. However, a recent google revealed that Amazon is apparently still carrying the book. Disgusting, yes. But that’s another topic for another time.

Getting away from O’Carroll and back to Gutierrez, could it be possible that this whole mess-one that ultimately resulted in ruining Michael’s life and forever tainting his reputation-was the result of a few zealous individuals acting on nothing more than suspicion and innuendo, and a desire to have a celebrity role model at all costs?

Tom Sneddon, Often Villified And Justly So. But Even He Was Just A Late Board Jumper Onto The Bandwagon-Not The Originator Of It.
Tom Sneddon, Often Villified And Justly So. But Even He Was Just A Late Board Jumper Onto The Bandwagon-Not The Originator Of It.

It’s not as far fetched as it sounds. While MJ fans have long villified Tom Sneddon for his apparent vendetta against Michael Jackson, it seems to me, at least, that Victor Gutierrez may be the one we should look to as the originator of this insane obsession. True, the seed may have been planted by those whispers at the 1986 Nambla convention. But it was Gutierrez who single handedly took it upon himself to quit his job, go into the field, and devote years of obsessive, dogged effort to dig up something-anything-which would tie Michael Jackson to those rumors. His quest, in short, smacked of desperation. But why? Why on earth would one individual become so obsessed over trailing another individual’s sex life?

One statement in particular that Gutierrez made to this German publication sounds eerily and disturbingly just like the propaganda espoused by O’Carroll and his cronies:

He learns: There are different types of pedophiles, it is as old as mankind, not all of their varieties are terrible crimes. Víctor Gutiérrez says: “In the five months of their relationship Michael Jackson and Jordie Chandler was happy it was love..”

I am assuming the first sentence is a paraphrase of Gutierrez’s own words; the second, for sure, is a direct quote. But either way, it is clear that Gutierrez is fully advocating the NAMBLA view that man/boy relationships can be perfectly natural; even beneficial. It is also interesting how he-again-uses the word “love” to describe what he clearly believes is an illicit relationship between a 35-year-old entertainer and a 13-year-old boy.

It is highly doubtful that anyone outside of the NAMBLA mindset would view such a relationship as healthy or normal in any sense-and certainly not as “love.”

Gutierrez then proceeded from that point to personally track down all of the kids and parents of Michael’s acquaintance.

Guess who two of those parents just happened to be? Joy Robson and Evan Chandler!

I have already mentioned how his inquiries were initially shot down by Joy Robson in the first installment of this series:

http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=8069

I will examine what came of his meeting with Evan Chandler in the next installment, and continue to look at evidence suggesting that the conspiracy to “prove” Michael as a pedophile at the very least (if not as an outright child molestor) extends much further back than 1993.

In short, the stage for the Chandler accusations was already being well laid.

146 thoughts on “Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 3”

    1. Oops, thanks for catching that! I guess that’s what I get for trying to be adventurous. I was googling for a pic of Evan other than the same ones I’ve used over and over. I thought that one might have been a younger pic of him.

      This one is perfect, though! Thanks again. I switched them out, but alas, had to sacrifice my clever little caption!

      1. Sorry, not an actor, an author called Frank Coffey

        http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/337565.Frank_Coffey

        I don’t know why that obituary site ended up carrying that photo as Evan’s, unfortunately there aren’t many good clean shots of Evan’s face – it’s interesting really how paparazzi seemed to leave him alone when he sought them out so much (his 1996 lawsuit, his brother’s book, etc).

  1. Raven, thank you for this brilliant and valuable investigative reporting. I had no idea Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg had any connection to the man-boy love advocates. (Have you noticed that they all tend to have the same look, with pursed lips and eyes all bugged out?)

    They aren’t the only ones with an agenda – it’s been clear since his very early success that homosexual writers, like Taraborrelli and Ian Halperin, have tried to cast MJ as gay, while the white male power structure types, like Randall Sullivan, try to asexualize him altogether. Hence this fiction that there have been no discernible relationships with women in MJ’s life. His two wives and three children are treated almost as if they were fictional characters. His near-elopement with Stephanie Mills, and his deep, lifelong infatuation with Diana Ross are ignored. And by now, it’s pretty clear that during the 17 years she spent with him, while less than a wife, Grace Rwaramba was more than a nanny. Of course these women are black; they evidently don’t count as much as a Brooke Shields or a Tatum O’Neal.

    1. Some sources claim now that Ginsberg was never a founding member; that this was just a rumor. It may be an attempt to whitewash his association with them now that they have achieved such a dubious reputation, but for sure, he was a huge supporter at one time and I still believe he was a founding member. But we have to keep in mind that this was during a time when all gay people were struggling for civil rights and recognition. However, knowing what I do about Ginsberg, I’m sure he slept with many teenage boys. But this was also an era when sleeping with teenage girls was not frowned upon as it is today (although there were extreme cases like Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13-year-old cousin and Elvis shacking up with 14 year old Priscilla). Jerry Lee Lewis did take a lot of heat for marrying his cousin Myra. But in general, as we know, America has always turned a blind eye towards these white male celebrities who sleep with teenage girls (not so fortunate for Chuck Berry and others, and besides, Chuck was framed). One reason Michael’s case struck such a nerve was, no doubt, due to the homophobic element. When these cases (whether the person is only being accused, or is actually guilty) involve boys, it becomes a different matter. There is a lot more shock and outrage, and that outrage is rooted in a certain cultural repulsion. I don’t think Michael was guilty. But the fact is that even if he was, he was bound to be judged by a different standard. He was a black man accused of abusing white and Hispanic boys.

      Yes, you hit on something I’ve been saying for a long time. Michael’s relationships with black women are all but ignored in these accounts. It’s funny because according to that scholar who wrote the review of the O’Carroll book, he quotes O’Carroll as saying practically the same thing (well, of course O’Carroll would insist Michael had no known relationships with women-duh!). No, the truth is that these men had a specific narrative when they set out, and never followed through on interviewing anyone whom they thought might have had a real story to tell. Or were content merely to stop investigating once they had interviewed these same handful of white celebrity women. It was as if, “Okay, Brooke said they didn’t; Tatum said they didn’t. That’s enough for me.” It’s the old Hollywood mentality that every guy must be banging every woman he is seen with. Even Tatum has said that, while they never went all the way, there was heavy foreplay (she tried to tell the story on Howard Stern, and typically, was cut off). That’s enough for me. I don’t need to know if they got to home base or not.

      But somehow his relationships with black women are all but ignored. And many of these seemed to be far more long lasting, if considerably more low key (Diana Ross aside, of course).

      I have a personal theory that Michael tended to use white celebrity women as “arm trophies.” If he was attending the Grammy’s, for example, he wanted someone like Brooke Shields on his arm; or if it was the Oscars, Madonna. But when it came to actual, intimate relationships, he seemed to prefer women who were more anonymous and low key-like nannies, for example (lol). Maybe it was a power thing, or maybe he just felt safer with women who weren’t celebrities. I don’t think he would have ever married a non-celebrity woman because as he said, he would never be able to trust that she wasn’t just after his money. But with celebrity women came the added pressure of more paparazzi, and the clashing of egos. (Here I’m getting away from race and more towards women in general for him).

        1. I didn’t know that. I knew his mom was part Asian.

          Still, the general consensus among those who think Michael is guilty is that he only molested white boys. (In truth, I think most people tend to lump Gavin and even Jason Francia together with Jordan as “white boys”). None of them are particularly ethnic looking in any way. It’s the perception that is really at the heart of the issue. Not that it should matter. But for some people, for whatever reason, it seems to matter an awfully lot. As I said in my reply to Nina, homophobia is one of the main reasons the public lynching of Michael, in particular, was so vicious. And racism is another element that I think can safely be added.

          History has taught us that black entertainers who commit the same crimes as white entertainers (or even if only accused) are always treated more harshly, and usually more villified in the press, than white ones. This goes tenfold if the “victims” happen to be white.

          1. Most people believe Jordan is “white”, they don’t even know what he looks like, they’re actually shocked when they do see a photo of him as their expectation is of a white child. But Jordan has a black phenotype, I would assume he was in the very least biracial. The media have drilled it into people that all these kids were “white”, like they looked like Macaulay or something.

  2. Raven, I’m really sorry for the rant but reading about NAMBLA/NAMBLA’s obsession with Michael made me really sick and that to as back as to 1986 .It’s really sick.How is it not a crime?But I guess that conscience only makes these monsters sleep at night.
    Interesting thing here to note is that Victor himself states “Jodie’s & Micheal’s relationship”as love,I mean even if you are a hater why would you claim such a thing as “Love”?
    I think Sneddon out of his racist and self righteous conscience perceived Michael as guilty but it developed into a blood lust vendetta after D.S.
    Why would out of all things the first thing that would come into Evan’s mind would be “Are You f_cking my son?”I mean if I doubted someone abusing my child,I’d first ask my child and the first thing that would come into my mind would be molestation and not “f_cking”,that thought itself kills me and I’d just go to the police first if my child addresses any abuse and not investigate and interrogate my child myself with such a zeal.Apart from his greed there are so many aspects to Evan that are needed to be considered and analyzed while making any conclusions about the 1993 case.
    And moreover there is no way that Michael could have paid his way out of jail because there is no conviction in a civil trial only payment for damages done

    1. I am prone now to believe those ideas were planted by Gutierrez when he met with Evan, something I’ll get into in more depth in the next installment. When I first read of Evan asking that question to Jordie-and wording it just that way-my jaw hit the ground. Who talks that way and uses that kind of language to their 12 year old son? Ray Chandler excused it by saying that Evan was using such bluntness as a way to shock the kid into confessing. I’ve also heard they were a very liberated family, for whom I suppose talking about such matters openly was no big deal. Still kind of unsettling, though.

      Gutirrez went on a mission to hunt down every kid and every parent of every kid associated with Michael. It just so happened that Evan was the one at the time who was disgruntled enough to let that seed be planted.

      1. Have you read MJWML and O’Caroll’s book? I do wanna read them for the sake of research but I’m not wasting a penny on such hellish crap. Can I find pdfs of these books? if you have any links please send them to me.

        1. Your best bet is probably Lynette’s offer. But there are some free pdf versions available:

          http://www.freeebookse.com/Victor-M-Gutierrez-PDF8-1443764/

          http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/info/1222739/michael-jacksons-dangerous-liaisons

          I have read both, though with the O’Carroll book, I tend to skim parts and/or will save parts to go back to later. It’s not exactly the kind of thing I curl up with and read cover to cover, lol. But these books are really fascinating in their own way. Often, if you know what to look for, they can do more to exonerate Michael than to incriminate him (especially true of MJWML, as I also found to be the case with All That Glitters).

      2. You know the funny thing is that all these accusers come from really liberated families;Gavin’s granny talking about masturbation and rape to his 13 years old grandson; now I dunno much about Latin American culture but that would be considered very inappropriate in most parts of the world,in my part at least!!!

  3. Thanks Raven for a very interesting post, even though I cringe as I read all the sickness of it, also being entirely convinced of Michael’s innocence!! What jealously and greed will do hey? Not living in US am not getting news of what is happening with the Robson court case? Thought it was due to come up in July? Could you please just let me know if anything has happened – like perhaps thrown out of court as far as the judge could throw it!!

    1. To my knowledge, it is still on. I have a feeling if it were to be thrown out, we wouldn’t hear of it in the media. Instead, they will simply allow the story to quietly sink. But if that happens, I suspect Wade’s next step will be to exact vengeance in some other way-another media blitz, or possibly a book. I can see it happening.

      I believe he is hell set on personal gain from this, whatever the outcome.

  4. Thank you Raven for this comprehensive article on this subject.I just hope it would be published in a respectable magazine or News paper, if such still exist.

    1. I have tried in the past to query several publications with articles on Michael, but they are only interested in dirt or gossip, which they can get from writers who have much bigger names and more hoity-toity credentials. Usually, it is easier to get articles accepted that deal with less controversial aspects of Michael’s career, such as his music and art, but a lot more difficult when it deals with these allegations (unless he is being slanted as guilty). One BIG problem is that mainstream publications are very sensitive/touchy about articles that are blatantly critical of the so-called “victims” and their families. There seems to be a general consensus to protect these people. To some extent, it’s understandable. No publication wants to be singled out as “the bad guys” who have trounced the reputation of a potential child abuse victim. The most they will usually allow is to leave the facts somewhat ambiguous, so that readers might draw their own conclusions. With enough time, patience, and editing I could probably give them what they want. But being the passionate and outspoken person that I am, I usually have little patience for their restrictions and limitations. Charles Thomson and Joe Vogel can both tell you that having articles published in mainstream outlets usually involves a lot of editing and compromise.

      This is the wonderful thing about blogs. They provide an outlet for getting the truth out there, while cutting out the middle man and all the BS that goes with it.

      The downside, of course, is that the readership is much more limited. But with enough hits, these articles can sometimes be pushed very high in the search engines. I’ve noticed that several of my past articles now come up on the first page of Google and Bing if you type in Michael Jackson and some related catch phrase, which means these pieces are getting visibility and drawing people to them. Also, posts from many fellow bloggers and advocates are gaining visibility as well. That is a good thing because it means the information IS getting out there.

      Another downside, though, is that detractors will tend to brush off any information that comes from a perceived “fan site.” Even though we may do just as much dogged research as any investigative reporter, it’s hard to shake off the stigma of the “fan” bias. The interesting thing about it, though, is that I wasn’t really a fan when I started researching Michael. I was interested and curious, but not a fan. That came later-as a result of my research. But most of what I learned about the allegations came when I still had a very open mind to hearing both sides.(And, of course, bias is something that holds equally true for the hater sites).

      I suppose that is the reason why general readers still turn to the mainstream media for what they consider unbiased, balanced information. The problem is that so many of these writers, however, simply don’t do the homework. They do quick hatchet jobs in order to meet a deadline, and that’s it.

      In a nutshell, I keep hoping that the small seed of journalists and publications brave enough to take on the truth will continue to flourish and grow.

  5. @ Goodie
    I have both of the books in PDF format. If you go to our email at MJV 2.0 David or I can send you the books for you to read. I am just now finishing O’Carroll’s book.
    I originally wanted the book by O’Carroll for the sources of his information. Now I am looking at it for a different reason. I believe that Wade Robson intends to use disallowed evidence from the 2005 trial to ” prove” that he is telling the truth. I will get more into in a post I am writing about it but if any of you have read his claims I can tell you that Wade Robson searched someone out to help him with his fabrication. He did research and it is all over in his claims where he found that information.

    1. Thanks for the help Lynette I just sent you a message on VMJ 2.0 thanks again I might as well ask Dave for more information on these books.

    2. He actually sounds like way too textbook in his behavior and claims;like he says in the today show that it takes a little bit of study or knowledge to how common his case was.
      I for one never did research about the behavior of survivors;I just knew how it felt and cannot be generalized because I’m one.It was only during my research on these cases that i got to know bout studies and researches done on survivors.

      1. It is too textbook… on paper so to speak. You can find it in his claims of “that is when my God, My Idol became my friend”. Are these the actual words of Wade Robson? Is that how he felt about Michael? And since when does a 7 year old have the capacity to have this kind of abstract thinking? They don’t it is as simple as that.
        That was just one thing that led me to believe that it was contrived, scripted if you will, and like Evan Chandler before him where would he go and who would he believe could/would help him script this to be believable to a Therapist? Because he did tell this to a therapist at least once.
        His recovery time also amazes me. How did he tell a therapist in May of 2012 and show up a year later on the Today show with such confidence? Everyone concentrates on his words when they watch the video which is good but then watch again for his demeanor. Compare that demeanor to his demeanor in the interview he did for The Masterclass Legends 2012. I don’t know if anyone has an exact date for the interview but it is believed to have been just before his March 2012 “nervous breakdown”( I place that in quotes because there really is no such thing as a nervous breakdown).There is no difference in his demeanor at all. Both interviews he is very relaxed and sure of himself. Can any other survivor of CSA claim this kind of miraculous recovery just prior to your revelation to a therapist? No probably not and that is because you are a real survivor. Wade Robson is not.
        Here is a link to the video of him in the March of 2012 interview for Masterclass Legends.

        1. “You can find it in his claims of “that is when my God, My Idol became my friend”.”

          It’s what Wade stated in the Opus about MJ in 2009, he also said something like that in 2002ish I think about MJ.

          He’s using his own previous words to try and create his current case, even if it doesn’t make sense – how being sexually abused would make a child stop seeing someone as a God but as a friend. Ridiculous.

  6. I’m remembering something Howard Bloom said about his meeting with MJ and his brothers in the early 1980s – that it seemed “dark forces” were gathering around Michael but neither he nor MJs brothers, nor Michael himself, could identify it. I was alarmed by it at the time.

    This is making me sick…..

    But I’m grateful that you are providing this info in such an easy to follow format. It’s a bit overwhelming.

  7. Thanks, again, Raven for your thoughtful and well researched info. As I was reading this and understanding what it means, it certainly rang true and brought up feelings of dread and almost fear. I had never considered this explanation and wasn’t aware of some of the history of ‘claiming’ a person’s identify for selfish reasons. The other recognition is that it is imperative that we continue to defend Michael at every opportunity. I also wonder if Mr. Mesereau has any idea about this distinct possibility.

    Looking forward to your next post.

    1. Thank you, Lauren. And again, I would like to make the distinction and clarification that (at least for me) it is not so much a question of whether Michael was gay or straight-or accepting the possibility of him being a gay man-as it is the fact that it is not for anyone to label him as anything without the evidence to back it up.

      Michael certainly wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last celebrity, whose sexuality has been called into question. However, the unique dilemma in Michael’s case is that the reason some want so badly to push the gay agenda is because they see it as just a stepping stone to proving the allegations to be true. As Roberta commented, it is important to realize they are not one and the same.

      But in Michael’s case, there are always going to be people determined to try to prove he was gay-and not, sadly, to champion gay rights, but to try to paint him as a pedophile who probably did do the things he was accused of. THAT is the unique conundrum in Michael Jackson’s case, and probably always will be.

      1. As you and others mentioned, there certainly is information about Michael’s sexuality…from many folks including his brother, close friend Frank Cascio, a number of his peers and people he worked with…a recent comment by Sheryl Crowe in BAD25 being one of them. Not to mention his own very frank statements about it. It is a blessing and a curse that the women he was close to remain silent about their relationship with him. Both his ex-wives have spoken about the issue. So…as is the case so often with Michael, truth is silent while rumors continue.

        I think the impact your post had on me was the realization that a committed group of people can claim a part of a person’s identity, true or not, and rewrite it for posterity for their own purposes.

      2. The response to that eventuality, Raven, is not to now-tow to the homophobia that lies behind the label of “gay” when it is used (by homophobic people) as an “accusation.”

        I see it is as very parallel to this situation: during the US elections of 2008, there were many who disliked and distrusted Obama. Some denied that he was an American citizen, and some said, “but he’s a Muslim!” His supporters were quick to reply—correctly—“no he isn’t, he’s a Christian.”

        The problem with this kind of debate, of course, is that there would be nothing WRONG if Obama *were* a Muslim, running for President, or doing anything whatsoever. He happens not to be a Muslim, but a practicing Christian. But in the process of this kind of back-and-forth, harmful and bigoted notions get perpetuated that have nothing to do with Obama.

        Raven, you say that some people want to push the “case” that Michael was gay (you call it “the gay agenda”), because they see it as a stepping stone toward proving the allegations that Michael had inappropriate relationships with young boys. But it works the other way around, too: people who are fans and want to “defend” Michael from the charges of child molestation believe that “proving” his heterosexuality is a stepping stone toward doing that. In either case, I maintain that I don’t KNOW what Michael’s sexual orientation was; and I don’t believe it really matters. Truth be told—and perhaps this makes me unusual as a fan—it’s VASTLY more important, in my view, raise the general consciousness about various forms of bigotry, the kinds of damage they wreak upon people’s very lives and bodies, and how they are often concealed under one guise or another, than it is to simply “defend” the reputation of one deceased individual. Perhaps people will find me churlish for this reason: so be it.

        And much as I, too, want to see these charges of child molestation stricken from the historical record on Michael Jackson, there’s NO WAY it should cost what it has in terms of perpetuating *innumerable* prejudices in the name of “defending” this man. The way we speak matters, I think—and to insist on furthering the kinds of homo- and transphobic locutions that are rampant throughout this fan community—around this very issue—is simply unacceptable, in my view.

        Raven, you mention that phrase by Kurt Cobain: “I am not gay, although I wish I were, just to piss off homophobes.”[23]” With regard to Cobain you say,

        “This is a prime example of how a false identity can be created, and goes back to what I was saying in the post. Kurt himself seemed very ambivalent on the issue. It is possible that he was in denial himself, or confused, or simply was subconsciously a victim of the same homophobic prejudice he claimed to deplore. Or…perhaps journalists like Ian Halperin have been too quick to pigeonhole him into something he never was, although his statement in The Advocate did lend at least some credibility to the theory….”

        No, I do not think Cobain was in denial himself, or “confused.” The reality is that sexuality exist along a continuum; people may be and do different things throughout their lives, and many feel that they don’t need to attach a name to these things. They want to be more playful (or simply more *realistic*) and claim multiple identities. Cobain came of age at a time when young people were by and large more inclined to resist the *labels* that their elders had used when they marched in the streets and fought their hard-won battles. Judging by the words and actions you mention here, I see Cobain as a smart and conscientious ally, and not at all someone who was “in denial.”

        1. My point, though, if that is Cobain made these statements, then we should be obligated by some sense of human decency to at least take them at face value and not try to attach a label to him just to suit our own agendas-which is exactly what Halperin and certain others have done.

          I also have stated that, if we flip the coin, proving Michael “straight” doesn’t necessarily mean he wasn’t capable of molesting boys-it just makes it a lot less likely.

          But human sexuality is simply more complex than saying, “He was gay so he did it” or “He was straight so no way he could have possibly.” I think you and I can certainly agree on that point.These are exactly the kinds of fallacies I was addressing, and neither does anything to “prove” his guilt or innocence regarding these allegations. Just as any jury, we can only do that by looking at the actual evidence and weighing beyond a reasonable doubt.

          I am sure we could just as easily say that fans who become so outraged by any suggestion of Michael being gay are prone to an agenda as well-the need to preserve an image that is cherished because in their own fantasies, they always wanted to believe they could have had a chance. I have indeed heard those exact arguments (again, from guess who-those pushing the gay agenda) but the simple fact is, they don’t know anymore than anyone else.

  8. While I appreciate your work with this article and find much of it compelling, I am put off a bit by your wording and framing and wish to suggest some edits. The term “gay pedophile” is highly problematic. A pedophile is a pedophile and it is not one’s sexuality as a gay person that drives this type of aberrant behavior. The terms being conflated have been a bane of the gay community’s existence for a long time. It is not one’s gayness that explains pedophilia, it is a psychiatric disorder. Also, when you discuss the increased acceptance of the LGBTQ community but in the same paragraph refer to the acceptance of “gay culture” you diminish your impact. It’s been a long time since folks have referred to their own lives as a “lifestyle” or “culture.” That type of framing suggests that we choose our sexuality. Again, thanks for your research and good work but I just needed to push back a little on the language and suggest reframing it a bit.

    1. The term “gay pedophile” is not meant to be offensive. It is a clinically accepted term that is used to differentiate between pedophiles who have an attraction to same sex children, as opposed to “straight” pedophiles whose attraction is to opposite sex children. The terms “gay” and “straight” apply equally to pedophiles as well as to those whose attractions are for adults. This is not in any way to imply that a gay man is more driven to commit pedophile acts just because he is gay. But just as there are so-called straight men and women and so called gay men and women, there are also gay and straight pedophiles. It would be highly unusual to find a pedophile who singles out both girls and boys, though I imagine they are out there. The term “gay pedophile” is one that has often been used to describe Michael in some circles-and yes, in the way the phrase is being used in those cases, it is, unfortunately, usually meant in a degrading way-as much a slur upon being gay as being a pedophile. I certainly do not mean it in that sense, but only in the clinical sense of differentiating between a pedophile who has same sex attraction, as opposed to opposite sex attraction.

      Although pedophilia is currently classified as a psychiatric disorder, I think that will change within a very few short years. There is already a huge movement under way to have pedophilia reclassified as an orientation. Keep in mind that homosexuality was still classified as a psychiatric disorder just a few decades ago. The truth is that a pedophile can no more help being what they are than a gay or straight person. They can, of course, make a choice in whether they act on those impulses. The potential danger in this reclassification is that it may then give groups like NAMBLA greater political clout. Let’s hope not.

      As for using the term “gay culture” I was using it mainly in the communal sense to denote a group of people as a whole, in the same way one might refer to the academic community, or the African-American community, or any other embodied group as a whole. I don’t think the term is usually intended to reflect on whether it is a lifestyle choice-at any rate, I certainly didn’t intend it that way. As someone who has gay siblings as well as many, many gay friends, I certainly would be the last person to ever intentionally offend anyone. I’ll be happy to go back through and perhaps modify some of the phrasing.

      And also, thanks for your feedback which is very much appreciated.

      1. Raven,
        your article is really very interesting!
        I am certain that the diversity of Michael was the cause of all his troubles.

        And, for diversity – mind you – I mean his being out of the norm socially accepted from many points of view, and that is I am not referring at all to sexuality.

        He was – in my opinion – a man who, consciously or not – led a life so extraordinarily beyond the so-called common sense of things, to be exploited and used by many who wanted to symbolize and chained him, like modeling clay its essence, without any respect and without restraint.

        And, I would add, that pedophilia will be for a long time regarded as a psychiatric disorder and you know why? Why is the mother of many psychiatric disorders (which does not – in fact – homosexuality) and damages to such the adult an extent that the world of science can not and will never ignore! Thanks Raven.

        1. I think they are well aware of the potential (and very dangerous) can of worms they would be opening should pedophilia ever become reclassified as an orientation. This, of course, is exactly what the NAMBLA faction are hoping for.

    2. I completely agree, Roberta. Indeed, it’s deeply offensive and hurtful when fans, with all the best intentions in the world, say things like:
      “They accused Michael of being gay and a pedophile!” To collapse these two things into one is unhelpful, either in understanding Michael’s reality, or the kinds of everyday phobias gay and queer people must deal with.

      1. These arguments, however, will no doubt continue until such time as people stop trying to make him gay simply in order to prove him a pedophile. Let’s keep one uppermost fact in mind-Michael was accused of molesting boys, not girls. I still think this is the #1 reason why most fans remain so sensitive about the issue. And the #1 reason those whom we call “detractors” continue to try to push that agenda so hard.

        Plus, I simply do not think that being either gay OR a pedophile had anything to do with Michael’s “reality.” Again, until such time as credible evidence proves otherwise. That has nothing to do with any prejudice or inability to accept the possibility of a gay Michael. It’s just that I simply don’t think he was. That being said, I was never in a bedroom with him, of course. But I believe the stories of the women who slept with him. And that porn collection…well, kind of speaks for itself. If they had found thousands of images of naked men, then I would say, yep, he was gay, no doubt.

        But yes, human sexuality is very complex indeed. For sure, gay men can still have affairs with women. Happens all the time. My sister, who identifies herself as openly gay and very proud of it, has had many boyfriends in her time. Bisexuality, in fact, is by far the most common orientation in Hollywood.

        I agree that a lot of it can be in the phrasing. When people say, “They accused him of being gay!” it sounds offensive because it’s implying there is something inherently wrong with being gay. And I can certainly understand both why that is offensive, and how it is does nothing to advance understanding and acceptance. It’s a very complex issue that cannot be easily resolved because 1: The molestation allegations, and 2: The belief by fans that there was a conspiracy to “make” MJ a gay man regardless of whether he actually was or not. As we’ve seen, that belief isn’t without some justification. In the 70’s, when a lot of these rumors about Michael were rooted, calling a celebrity “gay” was indeed an intentional slur, a castigation of that person’s manhood. Although we’ve come a long way since then, that stigma has still been a very difficult one to overcome. I still remember all of those awful stereotypes that we saw of gay characters in movies during the 80’s, and of course, the gay character was always the butt of the jokes-never the leading man! We are still seeing the vestiges of that in many of the arguments and debates we have right here. It’s very true that they should NOT be one and the same (that is, lumping gayness and pedophilia). But we also have to keep in mind that when Michael was accused of being a pedophile, he absolutely was accused of being a gay pedophile, not a straight one. This is an important distinction because it plays right into one of the exact reasons why Michael’s public lynching was so vicious in the extreme. Even in the Jerry Sandusky case (though he was guilty as sin) the backlash against him was much more extreme than it would have been had he been accused, say, of sleeping with teenage girls. We can see for ourselves how quickly Hollywood and the public tends to forgive and look the other way when straight male pedophiles molest girls (can anyone say Roman Polanski? R. Kelly?). The reality is that we remain, at core, a very homophobic society, and this double standard is at least part of the very complex reason why public sentiment turned so viciously against Michael. Therefore, it is crucial to raise these issues as part of understanding how and why Michael was targeted to the extreme extent that he was. We have to acknowledge that these prejudices DO exist. And as long as we have people like Thomas O’Carroll and Victor Gutierrez spreading their poison of, “We should just accept that this is who Michael Jackson was” it only fuels that fire-and is very dangerous, as it may be encouraging a false acceptance that will forever brand how he is viewed by posterity. Not as a gay man (because that is not their aim) but as a gay pedophile.

        I still believe if it had not been for the accusations of molesting young boys, the issue of Michael’s sexuality would not be nearly the loaded issue that it is.

        Personally, I believe Michael used his friendships with these boys as a bit of a smokescreen. But that is getting into topics I will be delving more deeply into in future installments, and I will explain more then. I don’t want to give away too much prematurely.

        These criticisms are not without warrant. I feel what you’re saying. I just feel that in Michael’s case, there are so many variables that it’s always going to be a very complex and loaded issue. But as I’ve pointed out, even “proving” him as straight (if such a thing were possible) alone isn’t enough to absolve him of those accusations. Jerry Sandusky was married to a woman.

        But as I’ve said, there HAS been a concentrated effort to push the idea of Michael as a gay man in order to make it seem more likely that he molested boys. That is fact.

        Perhaps those people need at least as much educating as the fans, so they can learn to accept that even if it should come to light that Michael did have adult relationships with other men, it does not make him a pedophile.

    3. I have gone through the piece and made some of the edits you suggested. I think I was able to do this in a way that did not alter my original meaning or intent in those passages.

      Thanks again for your input.

  9. Raven, you are right on the mark regarding NAMBLA and Victor Guitirrez.When it comes to Wade-it is all in his mind. The precocious child,talented so young you could almost call him a child genius,and a short starshot career following that.It is also his mind that had 2 mental breakdowns, was he depressed then? Now the other side of this mind has come to rule. My thoughts lean towards bipolarI illness.And I mean mind in both the psychological and physiological sense.It remains to be seen, at this point it is a hypothesis based on expierience.Fleeing to Hawaii, starting a non-profit foundation for abused children (sex I suppose,or prevention maybe, more will becoming if that has not yet happened but looms as a danger to all children).But wherefrom the money to do all this and to support his family, especially as he has abandoned his career and gone for new-age treatments.By now we all know of the great idea that has struck his mind.
    ps bipolar has a relat.strong genetic component.The future will tell if this is a bipolar lift.

    1. I am starting to lean toward the theory that when Wade began having these breakdowns, he may have fallen into the clutches of a therapist who convinced him that he was sexually abused. This is a little different from repressed memory, which Wade has already now admitted was never the case anyway. This has more to do with the ability to convince someone that even harmless gestures of affection, such as kisses and hugs, could be construed as sexual in nature-and thus, abuse. This kind of aggressive therapy happens a lot more than people would think.

      Give such a therapist enough material to work with, and he or she could convince a vulnerable patient that their grandmother’s hugs were sexual abuse. Then, all it takes is a little research into other cases-Wade admitted to reading The Courage to Heal, a book very popularly recommended by therapists when they are attempting to convince their patients of the validity of sexual abuse in their past experiences.

      The Courage to Heal has been both a blessing and a curse. It’s a book that has genuinely helped many, but in some cases, has also led to a lot of false accusations (there have been documented cases where people admitted years later that they came to doubt their memories invoked by reading this book were genuinely abuse). Basically, the mantra of this book, and of those therapists who promote it is…if you think it was abuse; if it felt like abuse, if it made you feel uncomfortable, it was abuse.

      Now let’s say that Michael, being the affectionate person that he was, gave Wade lots of intimate hugs, just to show he cared. But perhaps Wade had never received that kind of affection before (not every child has parents who give hugs). It makes him uncomfortable, but he goes along with it because Michael is his friend, and eventually learns it’s okay to accept a hug. Now here comes Mr. Hot Shot Therapist who now convinces Wade, some thirty years later, that this could qualify as sexual abuse.

      That’s just speculating, of course, but it could very well and possibly have happened just that way.

  10. I don´t intend to see homosexuality or pedophilia as mental illnesses.They belong to personality disorders, and homosexuality is exempt as it does not hurt any one but brings in the individuals as accepted into the common society.The more gay and lesbian people are accepted.the more they become positive productive individuals.I don´t know about the statistics today in US, but before homosexuality was accepted their suicide rate was considerable.And they absolutely are no danger to heterosexuals.There is a distinction between illness and disorder.Pedofilia belongs to the latter. And it is dangerous just becacause it involves one of the most intimate human relationships.Only mother-child can
    be compared and that when the child is a baby or young toddler.
    Personally I am absolutely against it being accepted and legal. What needs to happen is research to find its roots.It is un-natural. homosexual acts though unusual are not unknown in primates or other animals.
    Michael´s life life turned into tragedy as result of NAMBLA ang V.G.

    1. Another theory I have often heard in regards to pedophilia-and how it develops-is that people may tend to get sexually fixated at certain stages of their own development. For example, we all know that children will engage in games like “doctor” and “show me your thing if I show mine.” This is harmless enough at a certain age. But some individuals may become unusually fixated on the pleasures they experience at that age, with another child, to the extent that even as an adult they still fantasize about it. This is also where the theory stems from that children who are sexually abused may be more apt to be abusers themselves. In the event that they did experience any pleasure from the abuse (even if that pleasure came also mixed with fear) they may become fixated on those experiences as adults. If anyone wonders how in the world a grown man could have sexual attraction for a nine year old girl, for example, this could explain it in part-if he can still remember what it was like for HIM as a nine year old to have sexual feelings.

      I know there are some MJ haters out there who are trying to push the theory that Michael was a sexually abused child. I am very cautious of those who push that agenda, because I know what they are usually, ultimately aiming at-that this makes him a more likely candidate to be a child abuser himself.

      It is very possible that Michael could have been sexually abused as a child at some point-he was a show business child, after all. We can’t rule it out as a possibility, but the truth is that we simply don’t know and for that reason, I refuse to get drawn into those debates. Something of that nature we could theorize till the cows come home, but unless it came from Michael’s own mouth or a reliable and credible witness, there is just no way to ever know.

      ETA: Just for the record, some of the things Michael was made to do as a child, such as performing in those strip clubs, could probably qualify as “sexual abuse”-certainly by today’s standards. He admitted in Moonwalk-albeit in a somewhat roundabout way-that the things he witnessed in those places had a profound impact on him to the present day.

    2. Kaarin, what evidence is there that a gay person has a “personality disorder”? As a category, homosexuality was stricken from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the “bible” of the psychiatric profession) years and years ago. And rightly so.

      We might as well consider heterosexuality a “personality disorder.” We’d be no more incorrect. The reality is that sexuality takes place across a wide continuum. There’s no further excuse for MJ fans to remain ignorant of these matters. Since these discussions keep coming up, I think it really behooves fans to cease succumbing to these long-established (and now largely debunked) prejudices, and to at least TRY to keep pace with the thinking that the majority of educated and knowledgeable people have long accepted.

  11. It happens sometimes with old gran pa or great grand pa with alzheimers or some other dementia that they engage in inappropriate sexual beheviours.This is a result of their brain disorder as their minds fluctuate from baby-childhood to adult in an unpredictable manner.

  12. The reason for not accepting pedofilia is it´s very intimate and central position to personality development. A child is not in the same power as an adult when it comes to desicion making.Partners have to be equal in that respect.

  13. Decision has to be between equally mature persons.That is why there are separate rules for intercourse with disabled persons. Not that they should not have any. but they need protection from exploitation.

  14. Raven,
    thank you very much for your enlightening article! I was unaware of all these events and really for me to read your writing is like putting light on how it all started for Michael of which I since today did not realize!

    Even for me, things sounded too simple and too trivial attributing everything to the greed of Evan Chandler: but I did not really that underground world and I would say that has to do with issues even cultural, social and historical! I think you did the center! Thanks Raven!

    1. Thank you, Nicoletta. These are matters that have been investigated and covered also quite thoroughly by other MJ advocates, so I can’t take credit for anything here but I think it definitely bears repeating for those who aren’t aware, especially of just how dogged became Gutierrez’s quest to “prove” Michael as a pedophile.

  15. I have been reading testimonies from the AEG trial ,regarding Michael’s difficulties with prescription drugs at various times in his life, and his genuine efforts to beat the problem. Evidence has been given about implants that were used to help him overcome and fight his dependency, and the physical effects these had on his body…eg bad rash, visibility of the implant under the skin. Despite this being at times which coincided with child abuse allegations, and the intimate contact given as evidence, none of this was ever mentioned /noticed by the witnesses?

    I wonder if Wade noticed it at the( alleged) time?. If not I bet he’ll remember it now…!!

    1. The implant was in 2002/2003, so this would refer to the Arvizo boys who claimed to have seen MJ naked. They are the ones who should have seen it, but never mentioned it.

    2. Super interesting to hear MJ had a scalp balloon inserted in March 1993, something which I think would have been there for 6-8 weeks – right during the allegations with Jordan. Jordan never mentioned MJ having a big lump on his head.

      What he DID originally tell Pellicano was that MJ would sleep with a hat on in bed even – MJ would wear the hat to cover up the balloon according to others. So this info actually confirms Jordan’s original statement.

      1. Given what Jordan was accusing MJ of , he was either accosting him with a hat on , or he was staring at a balloon on top of his head..Either episode would have been memorable and Im sure , he would have mentioned it, if it ever happened.
        He didnt mention it …
        We see also that gavin Arvizo , who had claimed to see MJ for quite a bit of time , naked , claimed he “thought MJ was white all over.
        First off, Gavin wouldnt have to think about it, he would would be able to say for certain, and second, we see MJ vitalago in pictures all the time, even his death picture, so he is caught in lies there also..
        I dont know if Wade is bi polar or not..I recall a statement that Weitzman initially made as to why Wade was let go from the Vegas gig..That his son was sick and he didnt have a signed contract.That sounds like they parted ways in an acrimonious situation.
        And since he is on Youtube talking about how honored he was to be involved , he must be extremely bitter about losing that position..
        He sits and waits until the Vegas shows are just being promoted and hops on a plane to go on the Today shows , then high tails it to Hawaii.
        There was a lot of planning in this , just as with the Chandlers and MJ tour.Negative publicity.
        And it would seem from his sisters words, that she had been informed of Wades accusations a year ago, and yet all three family members withheld their rage and decided to wait til the Vegas shows were about to start.
        I recall Harvey Levin saying that his lawyer was reading Blanca Francia testimony with a fine tooth comb, AFTER he filed his papers.
        It is possible that given the media coverage back in 2005, that Wade thought her testimony was very damaging and that he single handily saved the day, by coming in
        I think he will have a hard time getting out of his testimony under oath , when asked specific questions about MJ behavior , and it lines up with his sister and mothers testimony as well as Brett and Mac testimony.

  16. I just want to thank you for this brilliant post, Raven. All this WR mess should not be forgotten during the AEG trial, because it could be the next trial we have to face.
    I especially thank you that you again pointed to Victor Gutierrez, which Helena already had done quite often. I also think that he played a key role in the beginning of the allegations, and this as well as the truth about his character cannot be reported often enough.

  17. Nina Y F , that was what it used to be called.Something that does not cause harm is not a
    disorder. And that is how it is considered now.The pain of homosexuals is caused by other peoples fear of it which is totally irrational.

  18. The thing is, Wade was not particularly gifted or successful as a child performer. He was rather odd looking, and he didn’t book many jobs at all. He did gain some fame as the ‘boy wonder’ who conducted dance classes at a very young age. Screwing up his professional relationships with very big names in the business really hurt his career, and that had nothing to do with Michael Jackson. Plus Wade’s reputation as a pothead who can’t pass a drug test kind of put the nail in the coffin.

    I wonder if Wade tried to self-medicate his mental condition with weed? I know a bit about the disorder, and I know that this is something bi-polar people often try. Considering the age of onset, and his family history, it fits.

    1. Amanda Bynes was trying to medicate her disorder in that way, I am personally convinced of his mental instability (which he even admits to).

      He’s had many curious “breaks” in his career where he claimed he was going into movies and definitely had various scripts and movies on the go – all of which have fallen flat and never come to pass. He made statements like that in 2003-2005, 2008-2009 and was still hoping for something with Step Up in 2011.

      1. A history of many projects attempted and never completed can be a sign of several different disorders, from bipolar to OCD to ADHD. It is especially common with bipolar disorder, because a person in manic phase will take on more than they can handle, only to crash and burn when depression hits-usually exacerbated by the realization that they’ve taken on more than they can handle. Feeling like a failure then compounds the depression. It’s a terrible cycle.

        On top of that, the simple reality is that in Hollywood only about 1% out of many thousands of planned projects ever reach fruition. Money is usually the biggest factor-or the lack thereof. Sometimes people back out. Promises are made that never materialize. For every spec screenplay that is optioned, ONE might be lucky enough to see the light of day five to ten years hence. It’s a tough world, especially for anybody with movie ambitions.

        And (as I suspect is the case with Wade) some people tend to have diarrhea of the mouth, boasting and bragging too much about projects that are in reality only in the drawing board stages. I would be willing to bet that in most cases, he was bragging about projects that didn’t even have funding yet, or a production team in place. There is nothing wrong with being optimistic, of course. Except it can make you look a little crazy over time when it becomes a repeated pattern. There’s an old superstition in the entertainment world about keeping a tight lip until every dotted line of a project has been signed; every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed. Otherwise, you risk looking very foolish if it doesn’t pan out.

        Once an individual has a history of failed projects, it becomes harder and harder for them to be taken seriously in the business-especially if they have boasted too much about those failed projects.

        I can imagine these failed ventures are only compounding his current state of mind, which has turned very bitter indeed.

        1. It just struck me as odd because in 2003-2004 he actually announced on his website he was basically retiring from the dance world to go into movies and in 2009 he spoke about how he was working on this project with his wife full time, 6 days a week, from morning till night.

          It just strikes me as odd that someone would take off all this time from their main work claiming they’re off to a Hollywood movie career pre-emptively and never has anything to show for it. Then the closest he DOES get to it in 2011 with Step Up and he breaks down claiming it was so close to emulating Spielberg’s success it scared him as it reminded him of MJ’s prophetic vision for him – I mean, all of it together really seems to amount to me as someone who is unstable with delusions.

  19. It has been found that weed smoked in the teens is particularly bad as it affects brain &
    cognitive function on a permanent basis. Later on it affects the mind too,but more on temporary basis and ofcourse if the person is a heavy regular user.Early and frequent ude makes you more prone to psychotic symptoms. Take that + a bipolar 1 father.
    There was a certain manic way that he disclosed his allegations.A poster or interviewr stated ; why did he not just go quietly to a lawyer.AEG involment?

  20. At this point I don’t know if I believe that Wade used drugs or if he has Bipolar Disorder. If he did, he did and he does have the family history if that is to be believed as well. I am not sure if I believe that leak to the press is in fact true. It supposedly came from a cousin and it was used to show further “injury” from the imagined molestation of Wade by his father. Sounds too much like the Evan Chandler story to me.
    This whole thing is too “tight” to have been made up by someone with Bi Polar Disorder. What I mean by that is it took linking certain times he was with Michael to change the events to match what he now says happened. It took much more control of his thought processes than a person with BPD has over their thoughts.
    People that have BPD have what is called disturbed thought processes. They have racing thoughts one on top of another on top of another. It shows in their speech, they have pressured speech, like they can’t get the words out fast enough. It shows in the way they look, called hypervigilence. Their eyes are wide open and darting from place to place. Paranoid thoughts and delusions are seen with everyone being out to get them. They hear voices and see things. There is no evidence in looking at Wade in any interview that that would be the case either before or after he made this allegation.
    I won’t give Wade Robson the out of having any kind of mental illness. To me he has done this deliberately, coldly and with great calculation. He meant to do this and he was planning it before he did it. He is clearly doing it for money because not only is he asking for the “damages” to be covered by paying for his therapy bills but he is asking for punitive damages and that is where the big money comes in. Wade has done this deliberately and to get money it is as simple as that.
    The way it was leaked to the press was also calculated to coincide with the AEG case. Because of that case the spotlight was already on Michael and the courthouse. No better time to let the public know that he decided to make these claims. Everything about it just spells calculated.

    1. “People that have BPD have what is called disturbed thought processes. They have racing thoughts one on top of another on top of another. It shows in their speech, they have pressured speech, like they can’t get the words out fast enough. It shows in the way they look, called hypervigilence. Their eyes are wide open and darting from place to place. Paranoid thoughts and delusions are seen with everyone being out to get them. They hear voices and see things.”

      This is when bi-polar individuals are in the manic phase of their condition. (Bi-polar disorder used to be known as manic-depression.) When they aren’t manic, they have a depressed affect, or they can appear quite normal and function well. I believe that Wade Robson is a slimy, manipulative, spite-filled loser, who also happens to be bi-polar.

      There are excellent treatments for bi-polar disorder, and some of our most creative and productive artists have it; bi-polar and creativity seem to go hand-in-hand. But the treatments can’t give you talent or brains. Wade’s biggest problem is that he isn’t as good at his work as Jamie King

      1. Simba, may I ask where you get this information about the outward symptoms of bi-polar disorder? Is it from firsthand experience, or from reading? Just curious.

        1. I was involved in a legal proceeding with a bi-polar individual and I had to become knowledgeable about the condition to protect myself.

          1. My sister is bi-polar, so I know this condition very, very well. She is finally stabilized now, having gone through many, many medication experiments to find the right combination that worked. When she was manic, it was always a nightmare. Phone calls all hours of the day and night; just crazy, nonstop rambling for hours on end without even pausing for breath. And ideas for all kinds of inventions, my gosh! I think at one point she had even contacted the head of Chrysler-who actually returned her call, but the hospital intervened and wouldn’t let her talk to him. Oh boy, did I hear about that one…for weeks on end!

            Other times, you could call and barely get a word out of her. In depressive mode, she was the exact, polar opposite (hence the name, I suppose). It’s like a plummet from the heights of Mt. Everest to the deepest, darkest depths of an ocean abyss.

          2. I think Wade is currently on some medication.

            The way he spoke about how he was working on projects that never took off – like in 2009 when he said he spent 6 days a week with his wife writing a script for a movie they were doing which never happened, struck me as Wade in a manic phase. He even described his status while good as being “invincible”, which is how people feel on a manic cycle.

  21. I am a psychiatric nurse. What I have seen in practice is that usually when people with Bi Polar tend to make false claims it is in the manic or hypomanic phases of the cycling. I just want to make the point that just because he says his father was Bi Polar there is no proof of that either past information from his court papers and a cousin that is the source of the leaks. This information in his court papers say that Wade had just recently found out from his fathers sister that his father was distressed because he believed that Wade had been abused. It is the cousin that embellishes it when he leaks the information in the tabloid media like Radar Online and TMZ. No ne knows for sure what it says because first it was sealed then it is so redacted that we don’t really know what his claims might be.
    All I know is that I would not want him to avoid responsibility for making a fraudulent claim based on a mental illness because you are right there are excellent medications available for it and people can lead very productive lives if they follow their medication regime.
    His claim though is that he sought a therapist and started insight oriented psychotherapy. Nothing implies hospitalization, medications,or frequent trips to emergency rooms for his symptoms. And yes there should have been symptoms even of his anxiety in order for it to be distressing and debilitating. Insight oriented therapy has come under some questions of late as well because of the ability to induce thoughts that are not reality based.
    The final hearing on his late claim is 9/27/13.At least that is what I can tell from the case summary which is available on LA Superior Court website. He also amended exhibit 1 which was his declaration on 7/1/13.I don’t know what changes were made to his declaration because I don’t have the amended one.
    I am not sure where information comes from about the case but he is supposed to claim that Michael showed him pornography and gave him liquor. That part might be in the Estates reply.
    I think he is using or trying to, a new law that was meant for victims of abuse in the Catholic Church that was passed in late April of this year in California. That changes the time frame for a claimant to make a claim against the Church. He or his attorney’s are using it against MJJ Productions and MJ Ventures. One of the legal arguments that they are presenting is that the company is responsible because Norma Staikos set up the meeting with Michael when they came to the States. That is where the company liability would come in because if she had not done that he would not have been abused according to his story now. It also places the blame on someone other than his mother so she can now claim she was fooled too.
    Last but not least when someone has a “textbook reaction” like his I have to ask if he knows what that textbook says.

    1. “One of the legal arguments that they are presenting is that the company is responsible because Norma Staikos set up the meeting with Michael when they came to the States. That is where the company liability would come in because if she had not done that he would not have been abused according to his story now.”

      Sounds like the Katherine Jackson lawsuit against AEG. Had AEG not hired Murray (yet to be determined) then he would not have killed Michael.

      1. But MJ didn’t bring the Robsons to the US. They sought him out on a social basis, and the only way to do that was through intermediaries, as understandably, you couldn’t just flip through the phone book and get Michael Jackson’s number. (For that matter, if MJ had been that enthralled by Wade, how come the Robsons didn’t already have the number?)

        So MJ is kind to the Robsons, invites them to Neverland, and gets Wade work as an extra in his short films. This is how they repay him. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.

      2. @Teva there is no analogy whatsoever between Jackson vs AEG and Robson vs MJE. I can give you 10 reasons why, but I will give you the most obvious: last time I checked Wade Robson was alive and kicking and Michael Jackson is not. There is an undeniable relationship between Michael Murray and AEG that is in black and white with the 3 names on it, drafted by AEG, that is specifically related to the treatment Murray was going to give Michael to fulfill his duties to artist AND producer(=AEG), including syringes, vials and a ECPR machine and there is a direct correlation between the treatment and Michaels death, established in a criminal court.
        There are many emails and testimonies that confirm that AEG knew and encouraged, not to say pressured the doctors deadly treatment of Michael AND Michael himself(tough love, intervention).
        Maybe in analogy to the AEG case you can give me one reason why WRs claim is justified, beginning with the evidence that anything remotely of what he claims happened to him.

  22. Sorry I’m late with this one but I have a question to Simba, you wrote:

    “They aren’t the only ones with an agenda – it’s been clear since his very early success that homosexual writers, like Taraborrelli and Ian Halperin, have tried to cast MJ as gay …”

    Where did you get this information cause I didn’t know that Taraborrelli and Halperin shall be gay (???) Or is it a matter of common knowledge?

      1. “Common knowledge.” Common to whom, Simba?

        After all, it was “common knowledge” that Michael Jackson was *weird* because he tried to purchase the Elephant Man’s bones, because he bathed in Evian water, because he had sleepovers with young boys (and of course, we ALL know what that means, don’t we—it’s “common knowledge”!), that he wanted to marry Elizabeth Taylor, that he had a pet chimp named Bubbles, that he slept in a hyperbaric chamber (and we’ve got pictures to prove it!), and on and on and on.

        Show your stuff, or let it be.

        1. I don’t know about Taraborelli, but Ian Halperin claims to be straight, despite persistent rumors to the contrary. That in itself is not the issue, but Halperin is nevertheless one of those very bent on wanting to “out” as many gay celebrities as possible (which, if he is truly a straight man as he claims, seems to me to represent a very twisted kind of imperialism on his part). I am sure that in some cases, his claims are legit, but the zeal with which he goes about his campaigns is a bit scary-and not unlike what Guteirrez was so doggedly doing to Michael in the 80’s. Halperin’s book “Unmasked” openly claimed that Michael was a cross dressing homosexual who had at least two male lovers in Las Vegas. This information has never been verified by any other source, and has never been mentioned in any other biography. Which does make one tend to wonder why Halperin seemed so determined to push this narrative of Michael as an “insatiable bottom.”

          Halperin also has a reputation for being one of those journalists who tries desperately to make a pet theory fit. He did this with Kurt Cobain, insisting on a murder conspiracy theory (and that Courtney Love was behind it)and further cementing that Cobain was bisexual, when in fact this was what Kurt himself had to say on the issue according to his wiki entry (the original source is from “Cross” and the book “Journals” which is a collection of Kurt’s own writings. I’m pasting the wiki entry just because it’s easier and quicker in a pinch):

          “Cobain befriended a homosexual student at school, and suffered bullying from heterosexual students who concluded that Cobain was gay. In an interview he said that he liked having the identity of being gay because he did not like people and when they thought he was gay they left him alone. Kurt stated, “I started being really proud of the fact that I was gay even though I wasn’t”. His friend tried to kiss him and Kurt backed away and told his friend he was not gay but would still be friends with him. In a 1993 interview with The Advocate, Cobain claimed that he was “gay in spirit” and “probably could be bisexual.” He also stated that he used to spray paint “God Is Gay” on pickup trucks in the Aberdeen area. Aberdeen police records show that Cobain was arrested for spray painting the phrase “Ain’t got no how watchamacallit” on other vehicles.[22] One of his personal journals states, “I am not gay, although I wish I were, just to piss off homophobes.”[23]”

          This is a prime example of how a false identity can be created, and goes back to what I was saying in the post. Kurt himself seemed very ambivalent on the issue. It is possible that he was in denial himself, or confused, or simply was subconsciously a victim of the same homophobic prejudice he claimed to deplore. Or…perhaps journalists like Ian Halperin have been too quick to pigeonhole him into something he never was, although his statement in The Advocate did lend at least some credibility to the theory

          Here is another good example of how Halperin practically salivates over “outting” celebrities:

          http://ianundercover.com/2009/02/06/iuc-exclusive-iuc-investigation-reveals-jake-definitely-is-a-pufter-relationship-with-reese-is-toast/

          He also went undercover as a gay actor in order to investigate a rumor that Scientology claimed it could “cure” homosexuality. No doubt, he was probably scoping out whatever he could learn about Tom Cruise, Travolta, and other rumored gay actors who are Scientologists. At least, this was what some believe was his true aim.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/tom-cruise-and-the-world-of-emeterwielding-scientologists-1203154.html

          1. I don’t think Halperin went “undercover” anywhere. He’s a notorious liar and most of his stories are simply made up – including this portraying himself as this big investigative journalist who goes undercover to investigate celebs. He takes information from other articles and gossip and he acts as if they are his “exclusive informations”. Other times he simply makes up “sources”. I don’t think ANY of his claims should be taken seriously. He’s a clown.

          2. Just an example of how much of a pathological liar Halprin is. In this article he claims he had sex with Anna Nicole Smith on Marilyn Monroe’s grave: http://www.contactmusic.com/interview/ianhalperinx08x10x07

            He also claims he convinced the Church of Scientology he had a rich uncle and he convinced film industry people that he was some sort of royalty which opened many doors for him. But in the other article in the Independent that was linked above didn’t he say he played the role of this broke, unemployed actor? So which was it?

            He’s a total fantasist. I’m amazed at how people can give him ANY credit.

  23. Simba says,

    ” I had no idea Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg had any connection to the man-boy love advocates. (Have you noticed that they all tend to have the same look, with pursed lips and eyes all bugged out?)

    “They aren’t the only ones with an agenda – it’s been clear since his very early success that homosexual writers, like Taraborrelli and Ian Halperin, have tried to cast MJ as gay, while the white male power structure types, like Randall Sullivan, try to asexualize him altogether.”
    _________________________________
    Simba: what would you say about straight men who have strange visual characteristics, like “a hooked nose and a mouth with no lips”? I don’t know that either Taraborrelli or Halperin are in fact gay: but if they are, so what? Would it mean that they would necessarily, more than other biographers, to “squeeze” Michael into a category of their own devising?

    Would you say that a straight biographer had an “agenda” to cast MJ as straight?

    Since you promote the unexamined assumptions and prejudices that you do (as above), I think some questioning of your own straight privilege might be in order.

    1. “I don’t know that either Taraborrelli or Halperin are in fact gay: but if they are, so what? Would it mean that they would necessarily, more than other biographers, to “squeeze” Michael into a category of their own devising?”

      In my opinion, yes. Michael was very hot. Look at all the women who were infatuated with MJ. He constantly had to fend off gay men who wanted to have sex with him. I believe that Taraborrelli, Halperin, and others, wanted MJ to be gay because they were sexually attracted to him, and they longed for the feeling to be mutual. Sorry if my opinion offends you, but that’s what I believe.

  24. There’s no doubt that many, many women were infatuated with Michael, and probably some men were as well. I don’t know how “constantly” he was required to “fend off” these men; by many accounts I heard, from his earliest adolescence he had to “fend off” a lot of girls and women who either wanted to have sex with him, or to grab a piece of his person as a souvenir.

    But it’s not my own personal offense that lies at the heart of this question, Simba. It’s your logic.

    Why would you assume that a gay man or a lesbian writer would be somehow *less capable* of doing thorough research than their straight counterparts? How have you arrived at the conclusion that gay writers (and we have no evidence that either Taraborrelli or Halperin are gay, anyway) would be more inclined and more capable of striving for objectivity, or of obtaining a necessary detachment to write convincingly about MJ without dragging their personal feelings and desires into it? And nowhere in Taraborrelli’s book, anyway, have I seen any opinion that Michael was gay, (though Halperin states this view quite bluntly).

    Why would you assume that writers who are gay men and women would be RULED by their desires, to the extent that they would want to “make” MJ gay in their biographies? Wouldn’t the criteria and standards of veracity, then, then, apply to straight writers? Wouldn’t these straight writers, likewise, need to be held to such close scrutiny? Why not?

    Couldn’t I just as easily claim that Shmuley Boteach (for example) sees Michael Jackson as a heterosexual man, because he himself is one? Or Frank Cascio? That these men are trying to fit Michael to into a heterosexual mold, based on their own agendas? Wouldn’t that make just as much sense as what you’re saying? Why not?

    Consciously or not, you are essentially repeating a common falsehood: that gay men (and, by extension, lesbians) are ruled by their sexual desires, not their capacity for rational thought. You are also attempting to “prove” a point (about Taraborrelli’s and Halperin’s sexual orientation) by approaching it in reverse, so I doubt you can provide any verifiable evidence from the world outside of Michael Jackson fan sites (unless you redound to some specious notion of “common knowledge”). To take Ian Halperin as an example, your reasoning goes something like this:

    Halperin believes Michael Jackson was gay;
    Michael Jackson was very hot, and had to “fend off” advances by men who wanted to have sex with him;
    and therefore, of course, Halperin must have been one of those men;
    and so, of course, Halperin *must* be gay.

    A stunning logical error here: so that what you *believe* is easily exposed as a product of your own deeply-held prejudices, and can hardly be taken seriously as a candidate for any sort of “truth.”

    1. “But it’s not my own personal offense that lies at the heart of this question, Simba. It’s your logic.”

      As I posted before, it’s my opinion. I feel no need to justify it to your satisfaction.

      1. I always think it’s funny how outraged some people get at the idea MJ wasn’t gay, they seem to react the same way to the idea he was straight – that this was a big impossibility and we need to consider him being gay first in order to be “fair.”

        Anyway, Taraborrelli and Halperin are both gay (unless Halperin has stated otherwise, because as far as I’ve always known he was open about his sexuality), and projecting your own issues onto MJ is a well known MJ trope. Being gay in America in the 70s/80s came with a stigma, projecting your life onto another man you couldn’t understand seemed to have been an outlet for Taraborrelli anyway. It’s not the same thing with a hetero perspective as people can’t project their conflicted sexual issues onto someone who they don’t think had any. With MJ the idea was he was conflicted, which made him ripe for others to see themselves in him.

          1. Since we are discussing sexuality. . . I can completely understand why ppl would say MJ was gay. Many entertainers wear makeup onstage or in character, but I don’t know of any straight men that wear red lipstick and false eyelashes. In addition Michael projected a delicateness while off stage. So, ppl were naturally curious.

          2. Michael seemed to fit all of the stereotypes of gay men, and didn’t seem any too willing to compromise even though he had to have known that certain elements of his appearance and demeanor were directly responsible for a lot of the speculation about him. For example, he chose to use that soft, high speaking voice (we know he didn’t really talk that way). As you say, he chose to wear makeup (I buy the argument in part that this was due to vitiligo, but not completely-he liked using it for the same reasons that women like it; he liked the idea of using his face as a canvas and work of art). Wearing makeup in/of itself, of course, isn’t a sign of being gay. There are gay men who wear no makeup at all, and gay men who certainly look no different from any straight man on the street. But, yes, it’s a trait people usually tend to associate with gays or men who are trans gender, although in Michael’s case, we have to keep in mind that for a lot of his public career, he was consciously acting out a persona he had created. In his manifesto, he said he would create “a new character.” I have heard people comment on this very fact-that even though a lot of guys in show business wear makeup, few wore it 24-7 like Michael. But we also have to remember, we very rarely saw him in completely candid, intimate moments. Even the photos we see offstage, at home at Neverland and elsewhere, were usually photo ops, in which he was very conscious of being “on camera” and, therefore, feeling obligated to play the part. When he was truly “off camera,” he usually went bare faced. Also, I think that in his last few years, he had veered towards a more natural look. He still had the makeup tatooing, but it was more subtle and I think he had gotten away from all of the heavy eyeliner, fake lashes, and rouge of the 90’s, especially the late 90’s when he sometimes looked so “tarted up” (you can guess I was never a huge fan of that look). It seemed he had started to go for a more minimal, natural look, which I think was much more becoming. Of course, with Michael you never knew what was coming-or what fashion statement he might make next!

            The precise reason Michael remains such an enigma is for many of these reasons-a man who “seemed” on the surface to fit the stereotypical gay mode according to many, yet staunchly denied being gay-and yet, while denying it, gave every appearance of being perfectly comfortable in his skin (no matter what certain others thought)and with no desire to compromise or conform to societal expectations of what a so-called “straight” man is “supposed” to be or look like.

            I think this apparent comfort Michael had with who he was-and his inability to conform to any set of standards-is precisely why he invited so much speculation and made many so…how should I put it…”uncomfortable.” After all, it’s one thing if we have an openly gay man wearing makeup and can say, “Well, ok, we know he’s gay.” Quite another, though, when you have an openly declared straight man who is nevertheless wearing makeup, who cries unashamedly, is soft spoken, loves show tunes…and still manages to drive women of all races and nationalities wild. There was something about Michael’s special brand of appeal that I think was a bit threatening, even, to straight men (what could all these women possibly see in a guy like that!). He didn’t seem to “fit” any mold, gay or straight, and perhaps for this reason, he did become a kind of blank canvas on which people could project most anything they imagined him to be, or wanted him to be, or needed him to be.

            But was being that blank slate Michael’s intent? I often go back to what he said so forcefully in that Harlem speech when he addressed the issue of a conspiracy against him.

            “…Overnight, they called me a freak, they called me a homosexual, they called me a child molestor…”

            So Michael, in his own words, made it very clear that he was consciously aware of the faction to whom we’ve been referring, and to their agenda. I’m sure Michael lumped all of these together due in part to the prejudices of his own raising and the stigma carried over from earlier generations. But the fact is, he recognized that there were forces who sought to paint him as “strange,” as “de-sexed” or pervertedly sexed; as “other than” in order to both diminish his commercial impact and to lessen the threat he apparently presented.

          3. While I do agree that he went overboard with red lipstick(I could never wrap my head around it!), he could have used much minimal shades and brands like bobbi brown etc. and a much better make up artist very efficiently to cover up his vitiligo but he actually like many of his other limitations used it for his public persona but this trick I think was just to drive women wild in a whole different way but at a point it backfired so badly that he could not even back up, having said that I do strongly believe that it just became a catalyst for an ongoing agenda,he was rumored to be gay as early as late 70s and through out the 80s in whispers(remember he had to hold a conference in 84 or 85 to clarify that he wasn’t gay) and he looked nothing like a stereotypical homosexual man back then.

          4. I always thought Halperin was pretty clear he was gay, so maybe it was a joke?

            Takes us back to the Victor Gutierrez issue, who tries to claim he’s straight on some TV stations in Chile, but otherwise in publications abroad he says he’s gay and actually left the country originally because Chile wasn’t very “LGBT friendly” (though kind of bizarrely he became a Mormon when he came to the US when the Mormons in the 80s weren’t exactly friendly to gay people either, so I’m still wondering about his possible motivations for attaching himself to them briefly were? he was still claiming to be a Mormon to the FBI in 1993 and with Diane Dimond in her book in 2005 – another cover?) and in another joked that his “boyfriends are gay.” I found it interesting he seems to have chosen to disguise that side of himself to people in Chile.

        1. Lacienega—yes, “projecting your own issues” onto MJ is a well-known trope: I agree; especially if this “issue” is one’s own homophobia.

  25. @Nina Y F August 15, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    I don’t understand. What was so threatening about Michael Jackson? He seemed the very least threatening person to me. I think the media just found him false. He was too contrary. The high pitch speaking voice, which was really an affectation. The no alcohol policy, but drank from soda cans. The not gay, but looked gay. The squeaky clean child-like image, but the persistent rumors of pedophilia. . . . . Finally it got to a point where hardly anything Michael said was taken literally. I could go on . . .

    In the beginning I blamed the media entirely for the negative perception the public had of MJ, but I don’t anymore. I think some of it Michael created intentionally, but it backfired. Sometimes as fans we have to take off the blinders and look at things the way other ppl see them to better understand why things are the way they are.

    1. Well I guess it’s true that perception is everything. Michael’s speaking voice wasn’t all that high. Mike Tyson’s is higher. I don’t recall any “no alcohol” credo from him. Certainly in the 80s and 90s, many avowedly straight musicians wore makeup and lots of it, and they didn’t have vitiligo to contend with. MJ’s clothing off stage was rather conventionally masculine – gay men who wear makeup don’t usually pair it with square-shouldered jackets and plain trousers.

      Michael had no control over the rumors. There are people who are convinced that Tom Cruise is gay, even though he’s been married three times, and nobody can point to a male lover. In fact TC successfully sued a guy who claimed to have had sex with him. MJ went through a long debilitating trial, was found not guilty, and the rumors persist, mainly because elements in the media never got over their humiliation for being wrong.

      I can see why some people see things the way they do, but I’d like to think that we know better, because we know more.

  26. Regarding Michael’s make up, I came across this review by Roger Ebert of a little-seen Sean Penn film about a retired rock star called This Must Be the Place.

    “Cheyenne (Penn) was a big star in the 1980s, but has done little to stay in the spotlight. He now lives in a mansion in Ireland with his wife, Jane (Frances McDormand), who works as a firefighter because that’s in her nature. Unlike some foolish ancient rock stars who trifle with groupies, Cheyenne seems to have been long and contentedly married; although he has sort of a groupie named Mary (Eve Hewson), he’s more of a kindly uncle to her.

    “What he’s never done is change his look. The film opens with him touching up his bright red lipstick and reinforcing his eyeliner, which are displayed on a clown white face framed by stringy jet black hair.”

    “When he speaks, his voice is thin and reedy and doesn’t seem to have any breath behind it.”

    I never liked the red lipstick on Michael, either. I guess we can blame Karen Faye. But there must be a reason that a meticulous actor like Sean Penn, who was married to the biggest female music star of the 80s, created this image. It probably struck him as authentic to the era.

    Until the day he died, Michael still had patches of brown skin. Ordinary make up brands like Bobbi Brown aren’t strong enough to work on someone with vitiligo. Dermablend, which is very heavy, is what most victims use.

    http://www.dermablend.com

    1. Simba, Thanks for the info about the kind of make up that works on vitilgo victims but I still believe that he should have used a much more natural shade, he looked porcelain white from ’97 onward;while he looked good in a way but to the public as a mass he was becoming a painted mannequin like Raven said “tarted up”.However, the more I consider it, the more I’m
      prone to hold Karen Faye responsible for it but Michael indeed used the make up to perpetuate a eccentric pop figure like he said
      “and if you wanna see eccentric oddities
      then I’ll be possessed before your eyes…”
      But it backfired in worst possible way.

      1. I think when he was insecure he wanted more make up to cover on him and Karen didn’t know when to stop or to advise anything better.

        In the Ebony 2007 shoot the make up artist suggested alternatives to MJ from the lipstick he wore, etc, and MJ took them on board! He needed someone like that with him from the start.

        1. Honestly I never really liked Karen Faye,she does not even take care of herself that well.
          I strongly believed he should have fired her.The late 90s look neither perpetuated that eccentric image successfully nor helped his insecurity.I believe that it made him more lonely and vulnerable.

      2. His skin WAS porcelain white where it was depigmented–meaning it was not ‘white’ like a normal ‘white’ person’s skin, with other skin tones like beige or pink, but white like a refrigerator (devoid of pigment). This is what vitiligo does, removes the skin pigment. MJ’s depigmnted skin resembled that of an albino –no pigment. This is what he had to deal with as far as makeup. Any dark makeup on that depigmented skin would look heavy and really fake, so he had to go lighter. Also remember that the tabs photoshopped the photos to make him look even whiter to fit their agenda.

        1. You can tell this especially if you see photos or footage of Michael alongside an actual white person. Caucasian people are not “white.” There is natural pigment which gives the skin a beige, pink, or olive tone. Michael’s skin, by contrast, looked like a sheet of white paper. There was simply no pigment left.

    1. The multiple links caused this to be held, goodie. Sorry about that. I didn’t see the comment in the que until this morning.

      I agree that his makeup seemed to improve in the 2000’s. I always liked his appearance at the ’99 Bollywood awards, however. Something about his eyes; they were super intense that night!

      1. i felt he was about to cry that night but that whole thing was ruined for me by a crass comment made by some idiot in the public

  27. Raven, you said: “For example, he chose to use that soft, high voice speaking (we know he did not really talk that way).”

    In the sense that he had not naturally a soft voice, but that he was trying artificially to adopt it? Excuse me, but I did not know this, and how it is in reality its natural tone of voice?

          1. Excuse me–I must be stupid, because toward the end of the “prank” audio I’m hearing Acon say very matter-of-factly that he will help Michael build a school as long as Michael doesn’t molest any more boys, at which there is a long, incredulous silence while Michael is trying to figure out why a friend of his would actually say something like that to him. Is that the prank? If it is, it’s not the least bit funny. In fact,it made me quite angry to be hearing anything like that on this site. What am I misunderstanding here?

          2. @Max I was referring to the private home video that Raven called funny and I linked the prank call
            for his use of baritone and moreover I feel that he made a complete idiot of Ralphige and turned the tables quite smartly.To me this call also shows his patience strength and cool temper more than anything else.He kept his cool despite his evident anger and I’ll always admire that;therefore this call will always have a place in my heart

          3. Okay. He did turn the table, but what a graceless man Acon showed himself to be. No wonder I never liked the auto-tuned “Hold my hand.”

          4. It was never Akon; it was a famous prankster Ralphige pretending to be Akon, moreover he did not sound at all like Akon I guess that’s why Mike got a knack of it so easily.

          5. Aha. Now I get it. But I still don’t like the auto-tuned Akon song. I wonder how this prankster got Michael’s phone number, though. I thought Michael kept it very private for very good reasons.

    1. Michael was actually using his more natural, lower register a lot more in the later years. I can’t say for certain, but this may have been a part of the overall attempt (beginning about 2003) to sort of overhaul and revamp his public image. However, he had always allowed us to hear it from time to time.

      I don’t think it was “that” was far removed from the more familiar voice that most of us knew. For example, I have heard some reports that he had a voice as deep as Barry White, but I think those stories are grossly exaggerated. I think it was simply a few octaves lower than the public voice he normally used.

      You can hear what I believe to be his natural voice here at 1:44:

      http://youtu.be/Drc6gARRBT8

      And here at 7:32 when he says good night:

      http://youtu.be/KEGV8czGrq0

      And in this video where he talks to the kids:

      http://youtu.be/F1QiUCIOxw8

      Of course, we’ve also heard the tape that Murray recorded, which captured Michael talking in an even more unguarded moment, and THAT voice sounded almost like Joe Jackson!

      1. Thank you Raven! You’re always so kind and dear and very willing to help me in understanding. You are a wonderful person, thank you!

    1. Anytime sweet heart!!! truly this man always makes you learn;I’ve gained more knowledge about many things through researching about him than through anything else

  28. Oh, Raven. How did a post about Wade Robson turn into a critical analysis of Michael’s physical beauty and voice? Why a critical dissection of what shades of blush and lipstick he chose–what better shades of lipstick and makeup he could have chosen instead? Why this talk of disapproval of his mascara? Yes, I know the connection as to how the world could perceive him as weird and gay, but…I thought we were above all that?

    What about your essay “When Michael Stood Up and Told the World “I’m beautiful'” which you posted less than two months ago, on June 18th? We’ve often mourned the fact that many people missed Michael’s incredible physical beauty, choosing to trash his ‘freakness’ instead.

    Here is part of your essay: “Did Michael really know he was beautiful? Despite all of the tabloid stories that depict him as a tragic and fallen human being, full of insecurity and self-loathing (their favorite narrative) the evidence from Michael’s own words suggests that he was very much in touch with his own inner strength. He always knew what he was capable of. He was aware of his beauty. But perhaps, like all of us, he sometimes needed a little reminding. We are all dependent upon the need to love and to feel loved. For Michael, it meant coming to realize that the only effective way to create change really does begin with the ability to love (if you’ll pardon my cliche’) the man in the mirror.”

    And why the Karen Faye bashing here–well, not bashing exactly, but disrespect voiced nonetheless? Michael loved her and she loved Michael. He chose to keep her in his life.

    And about his voice? a voice he honed into a beautiful instrument–a remarkable instrument to use in any way he chose?

    I appreciate this site so much–the truly thoughtful and intelligent participants here, but the world’s obsession with deconstructing Michael’s every move and personal choices is what broke his spirit in the end.

    1. The thing is we are discussing why is it so easy for the public to believe some very ridiculous claims so easily when it comes to Michael and not his personal choices;If I say Brad Pit molested me as a kid and I hung out with him through out my adult years and then had some repressed memories that came back to me and I decided to sue his estate then they would say that I’m a gold digger or if I say he hired some black magic doctor and sacrificed cows so that Tom Cruise’s movies flop, then my brain would be sent to some world famous psychiatrist for research but when it comes to Michael all is gospel, his haters often say that “Oh!he was lady like looking gay pedophile who had an amusement park in his backyard to lure children”and some people actually believe it.

    2. Ara..I totally agree with you .I was thinking the same thing myself.. and despite the subsequent explanations by goodie and Teva … yes I get the point they are making.. but there has been rather a lot of personal feelings about (for example) red lipstick and the wrong shade of make-up!!.

      I love this blog, and I think Raven does a wonderful job , and I know she freely allows everyone to express their opinions. More recently it’s all getting a bit too personal for my taste ..and by that I don’t mean personally directed at me , but at others, and Michael himself. I don’t for one minute think Michael was perfect or God-like ,but I do feel sometimes that this over-analysing is like another post-mortem (sorry.. autopsy ..I’m English and we sometimes speak a different language!).

      Having said that I read all the comments with interest , because at the end of the day we can learn from each other. I think sometimes because we discuss Michael so much ( and we want to), we have almost forgotten he is no longer living.

      1. For me at least, Mag it isn’t personal but in a way it affects me when someone goes as far as saying that he was a transgender or a disgusting freak and I don’t get where they are coming from and then after sometime I realize it always comes down to his make up and plastic surgeries and voice; you can break your head about lupus, vitiligo his wide range and they won’t listen and that ultimately effects their judgement on the allegations; like once someone asked if I’d let my kid around a womanly looking freak who has an amusement park and sleeps with children. And on larger scale many people have that conscience

    3. Ara, maybe can you read again the whole post? I have not understood what is written by Raven as a criticism or a fetish objective of Michael.
      These are just reflections balanced and calm, as always.

      You can not believe that Michael was always perfect, it was just a man like all of us.

      I’m talking about the look, behavior, his life, meaning that – like all of us – he was also subject to errors of judgment and behavior, although this human being special and unique that has always been.

      Sometimes chat without harm on him, it serves us to keep it alive in our hearts and to keep it close, even on “light” topics !

    4. Ah, sorry, I wanted to also add that, perhaps, even from these seemingly frivolous things you can understand why a lot of things happened in the life of Michael!

    5. It is not unusual for comments to veer off center in this way, as topics brought up in one comment may naturally feed into other, related topics. It’s the nature of conversation, and often, the nature of comments as well.

      I try not to censor and to allow a multitude of views to be heard, as long as I feel they are coming from a place of genuine love/respect for Michael. But sometimes that may include criticisms as well. As I stated on my “About” page, that is not beyond the rules of this blog. A little debate is healthy, and I do not wish to say to anyone that they can’t comment just because we may not all share the same views or opinions.

      I am only stating this because it seems you are addressing this as a criticism of me, rather than accepting the fact that different people commenting here may have different views (that may or may not necessarily reflect my own).

      I am not, for example, critical of Karen Faye. There was a time when I was because when I first seriously started researching Michael, I had joined a forum that was particularly anti-Karen. I eventually learned over time that different cliques of the fandom will sometimes have very different views, and as I learned more about the true nature of her relationship with Michael, I became a lot less critical of her. I realized I simply don’t know enough about her to be critical. I do believe she was somewhat jealous of the other women in Michael’s life and I believe she wanted more than his friendship (but I don’t know as that is something to necessarily criticize her for, as it’s an understandable emotion). To my knowledge, a lot of those early anti-Karen sentiments (at least in the forum I was a part of) was due to her very public feud with Kenny Ortega. As I said, a lot of the MJ fandom-and I’m sure you know this without being told-is very cliquish and certain fans will simply choose to follow certain individuals, while villifying others. It’s always been that way, and I see no signs of that changing anytime soon.

      These days, I try a lot harder to refrain from judging any of Michael’s personal friends, except for the ones who need to be criticized for obvious reasons (like Wade). I won’t always agree with some of the choices his friends or family or ex-wives make, but I try to steer clear of bashing them. That doesn’t mean, however, that sometimes things may not get a little heated when we are debating these issues.

      However, I don’t think that criticizing some of Karen’s makeup choices for Michael is necessarily bashing her. That’s just an opinion. And in that case, I’ve actually defended her on many occasions because I don’t believe Michael ever allowed anything put on his face that he didn’t want there. But it did seem that his makeup choices improved as he got better fashion advice

      I do stand 100% behind what Michael wrote when he said “I am beautiful” and I believe he was beautiful, absolutely, in every regard. But no, I did not always like some of the choices he made in makeup, or hairstyles, etc. Again, I don’t think that is necessarily being critical so much as just stating opinion-and Michael was a public figure, after all. It’s only natural that his fans will debate such issues. The important thing is keeping our priorities uppermost. While we might debate some of Michael’s fashion choices, we know that none of these things are as important as his artistry and the fact that he was a great human being. If Michael had gained fifty pounds, wore nothing but jogging suits, and publicly went bald, you can just imagine how tongues would have wagged. But would any of that have made us love him less? I think not.

      I don’t think the conversations here are so much about deconstructing Michael as simply trying to analyze and understand why we was perceived in certain ways by the media and the public at large. We can applaud that Michael stood up to the world and said he was beautiful, and perhaps we can decry how shameful it may have been for him to have been put into that defensive mode in the first place. But we can’t change the fact that society did have certain views and perceptions of him, and it is important for our purposes to understand and analyze the root causes of these perceptions and the impact they had. At least, that is how I see it.

      1. Raven:

        I can’t blame Karen Faye for whatever missteps she (or anyone else) made—or any of us believe she made–with Michael’s makeup or hairstyle. Was Michael a helpless babe in the woods who couldn’t say he didn’t like her work, or ask her to do it over, or even replace her with someone else? No. We know that Michael exercised supreme control over every aspect of his presentation and image, and we also know that he was entirely capable of firing people, or employing someone else he thought might do a better job. He often did so with lawyers, managers, publicists, and indeed anyone else who worked for him.

        So we have to acknowledge that whatever his look was, he must have, at least to some extent, wanted it that way.

      2. A little late in replying, but…

        My response to the substances of some of the comments here was not criticism, but sadness. I am not saddened by the substantive analysis of Michael, but by the critical dissection of what I perceive to be the minute and superficial elements of Michael: his choice of lipstick color, for instance. I’m tired of dissecting these: I don’t care how much make-up he wore. I don’t care what color his foundation was. I don’t care if he wore women’s clothes sometimes, or tattooed every inch of his body, or submerged his entire body in a bleach bath each night.

        Or slept with men. Or slept with women. Though these are more substantive matters.

        To me, he’s a force. I want instead to try to comprehend his transcendent inner qualities. Do I think he was perfect? No, of course I don’t think that, but neither do I believe he was a person just like the rest of us. I believe he was other-worldly—his essence so much more brilliant and radiant than other humans, and I think part of that was he was so utterly, stupendously unfiltered.

        Watching or listening to him leaves me awestruck by his spiritual beauty—and dismayed by his stunning naiveté, which left him—and those who love him—so damned vulnerable. Jesus, Michael, what were you thinking? How can you be so artless and naïve? It’s what made him so sweet, and it’s a large part of what made him so vulnerable, in my opinion.

        As for the subject of his “looks” this quote from Sullivan’s (deeply unpopular book for some) has stayed with ever since I read it:

        “The Japanese had long appreciated Jackson in ways that would never translate across the Pacific. While the country’s young idolized Michael as the ultimate popular icon, Japan’s intellectual elite embraced him as a Kabuki theater performer of the highest caliber. Without the slightest awareness of it, he had adopted a stylized persona that seemed to combine the onnagata and wakashu roles of yar o kabuki (young man kabuki): the exotic and androgynous garb, the heavy layer of white-pallor makeup, the smooth, shoulder length black wig, the soft high-pitched voice. Michael could project the qualities of profound hurt and deep sadness that was the part of every major Kabuki performer’s character, as well as the sense that he held a deep mystery at his core.”

        And as for Wade Robson, I could kill him. Literally. As in, if I had a magic wand I would make him vanish from the face of the universe. Gone. Forever. Without a trace. What a stupid man.

        1. That is an interesting quote from Sullivan. I still need to finish reading the entire book. I know there are probably some positives, but I just have a hard time reconciling some of what I know to be the book’s more negative aspects.But yes, it is important to keep in mind that cultural differences very much have an impact on how he is perceived.

  29. @Ara
    ….because throughout history all great artists are dissected. Just today I was reading that John Lennon was a “woman” beater, Oscar Wilde was gay and Elvis was really a blonde who dyed his hair black. Michael most likely read everything he could get his hands on concerning Michelangelo.

    1. Wel, Teva l…. It’s very well-known, at least, that Oscar Wilde was gay. It formed part of his writing, and a large part of his testimony when he stood trial for homosexuality in 1895, and served a two-year prison sentence for it. Now his prosecution is widely regarded as a huge tragedy and a crime.

  30. “like once someone asked if I’d let my kid around a womanly looking freak who has an amusement park and sleeps with children. And on a larger scale many people have that conscience”

    goodie…I do agree with your last sentence. I’ve had similar comments made to me about Michael from people I know well and like.. I turn it
    on myself, smile sweetly say something like.. “well that’s rather disappointing.. you can’t have a very high opinion of me if you think I’d admire someone like that, and I actually thought you liked me !!”

    Or I may say ” Oh Michael Jackson.. don’t get me started on him !! Expecting me to agree with them they’re flabbergasted when I tell them I think he was a fantastic example of the best a human being can be!!

    Because those people do know me well, they also know that I am very tenacious about things I care about, have strong feelings about many subjects, and do not draw my conclusions lightly.. ( I am a committed vegan and advocate for animals, so they’re used to a bit of preaching ! lol ).

    I am pleased to say that in Michael’s case ,at best I have been able to (calmly)set the record straight about a few things, and at worst I have had a muttered ” well I never really believed all that stuff about him anyway”.

    If you are like me , I don’t care if people are indifferent to him, but I find it heart-breaking to know that so many people still despise him. Sadly there are those out there who are determined to perpetuate the myths. Their very livelihoods depend on it.

    1. The sad thing is many people don’t know all the bull crap the media perpetuated because if they knew they would know how much the media contradicts itself but yeah I keep quite and sometime later ask them to research a bit about vitiligo and lupus without bringing Michael up that trick always works

  31. I’m probably the culprit when it comes to the sometimes-shifting the tone of the discussion here. Some may call it “personal,” but for me, it’s part of a broader ideological (and ethical) debate.

    I apologize for poking the bubble of the entrenched worldviews of some people here. But for my part, the gloves come off when any form of bigotry (whether proffered consciously or unconsciously) rears its head. It’s nothing against any individual here—I’m sure some here are animal advocates, vegans, as Mag UK has professed. What I’m talking about are deeply-held social prejudices, and they come out in the form of language that’s deeply offensive to certain marginalized groups—and that should be offensive to ALL of us.

    This is NOT by any means the only MJ-oriented site where I’ve read such stuff. In the name of “defending” Michael Jackson, many fans have perpetuated these bigoted attitudes, and I have to ask why. Here are some examples, from above [emphasis mine]:

    Ara says:
    “Oh, Raven. How did a post about Wade Robson turn into a critical analysis of Michael’s physical beauty and voice? Why a critical dissection of what shades of blush and lipstick he chose–what better shades of lipstick and makeup he could have chosen instead? Why this talk of disapproval of his mascara? Yes, I know the connection as to how the world COULD PERCEIVE HIM AS WEIRD OR GAY, but…I thought we were above all that?”

    Goodie says,
    “For me at least, Mag it isn’t personal but in a way it affects me when someone goes as far as saying that he was A TRANGENDER OR A DISGUSTING FREAK and I don’t get where they are coming from and then after sometime I realize it always comes down to his make up and plastic surgeries and voice;”

    Goodie says,
    “…his haters often say that “OH HE WAS A LADY LIKE LOOKING GAY PEDOPHILE who had an amusement park in his backyard to lure children”and some people actually believe it….”

    ________________________________

    Surely I’m not the only one who finds these kinds of locutions offensive, and I won’t hold my tongue simply to maintain the peace. We can start from a different place entirely. Whatever we believe Michael’s personal sexuality to be, and however we may interpret the style of his hair and makeup (androgynous, whatever), we can FIRST acknowledge that these descriptors are NOT, in and of themselves, pejorative. If words like “gay,” “androgynous,” “transgender” are used as insults, then it’s ONLY a reflection of the prejudices of the person using them. Apart from the way you personally feel about Michael Jackson, I would ask such people to think about the broader implications of what they are saying: and please OWN it.

    1. Nina,The term “gay” or “transgender” is not supposed to be offensive here and neither is someone’s sexuality nor should it be. I’ve heard people associate the most degrading slurs about transgenders and homosexual people with Michael and I just wanted to get that point across in a much more respectful manner and moreover I was quoting some of his haters.Its like calling someone from a sub-continental origin a”paki” or a black person a “nigger” while there is nothing wrong in being from Pakistan or the Indian subcontinent or Nigeria but the spirit behind calling someone these words make them offensive.Forget about these passive usage,I’ll tell you about myself,I am a handicapped girl with a full fledged Afro and having an Afro like mine is not common in my part of the world and nobody in my family has curly hair let alone be an Afro and neither am I of African roots; From my very childhood people used to make fun of me due to my disability and often used to call me crazy due to my Afro and I used to get hurt,even now sometimes these things hurt.Would you call me someone who is ashamed of her disability or is prejudiced towards autistic people just because I got hurt? I’m very proud of myself; People often ask me if I pray to get “healed” and I tell them that I believe that I’m His masterpiece;He doesn’t make demos and blue prints,its one stroke perfect for him.He does not make mistakes that is why He is God and we are human but yes I used to and/or use to get hurt not because of the words they use but the spirit of disrespect and superiority that is behind those words.That is why ,I think we teach our children not to “make fun” of people or not ask about certain things to certain people. And I never in anyway linked homosexuality to pedophilia,the term “gay pedophile”is often used in general because people perceive that he was inclined towards little boys and not girls.

      Yes,Michael was beautiful inside out He had this inner light and spirit that effected so many people in such a way and nothing and no one could ever take that away from him and never will.
      And moreover I’m critical of certain aspects of work of Karen Faye and not their personal dynamics because I don’t know anything factual enough to make an accurate conclusion about that and even in my criticism as you call it I never said he did not have any say in it or did not look good but it played a big part in his public lynching

  32. I would like to see Michael’s legacy move forward as much as anyone. But when people are continually linking the word “pedophile” to “gay,” then I’m afraid I REALLY can’t take these vigorous protests against “the media” very seriously.

    Indeed, I’m dismayed by how many of Michael Jackson’s fans have bought into these largely media-made attitudes—now widely regarded as archaic—hook, line, and sinker.

    “The media” is NOT an entity that is “out there.” Its values, its agendas, its prejudices, its words reside within us, and frequently come out in that sector of “the media” that are the blogs and chatrooms of this world. The homophobia and transphobia I see going on here is downright appalling—and it comes, like most bigotry, from ignorance. “In no way” does it reflect the spirit of acceptance and inclusion that Michael himself advocated. And counter to these attitudes, it’s actually public radio and television (in the US), as well as some online sites—THE MEDIA—that has begun the task of educating people about the forms of discrimination that LGBTQ people have faced—thanks to the (largely unconscious) attitudes that are adopted by people who ought to know better, but somehow do not.

    Indeed—part from some right-wing figures and the outlets they work for —“the media” itself is a helluva lot more knowledgeable, tolerant, and socially conscious than are many MJ fans who righteously come to the “defense” of Michael, using outmoded notions that most educated people have jettisoned decades ago. What can we say when “the media” turns out to be a much more broadly tolerant than many people who purport to advocate for Michael Jackson’s legacy?

    Raven, I’m sorry to upset people, but it HAS to be said, and if nobody else is going to say it, I’m afraid I must. Whatever identity I may claim for myself, many of my closest friends and associates are gay and/or queer people of some stripe—“LGBTQ,” as some would call it. One of my dearest friends is a transgender woman, who is married to a transgender man. Many, many more of my friends would unproblematically (and proudly) describe themselves queer in one way or another. I don’t want to have to put it in these personal terms, because to me it’s a matter of principle: but there you have it.

    People need to educate themselves in a big way. And anyone who would advocate for Michael Jackson’s legacy needs to be apprised of these matters, first and foremost, if they are going to be taken seriously in the larger community and not ridiculed. And I’m talking about the ways we communicate to KNOWLEDGEABLE, educated people—people who simply don’t know much or who have never thought much about Michael himself. Not the “haters.”

    1. Hi Nina.. you are clearly passionate about your views, and quite rightly so. One of the difficult things about responding on blogs is that it is not always possible to get the correct inflection into the words we write, or include every detail of why we feel the way we do about a subject.

      I’ve never felt the need to explain that I really do not have any prejudices or pre-conceived ideas when it comes to other people. I’ve never felt the need to explain that I have had a varied and somewhat unusual life, and have met and engaged with all sorts of people from a multitude of backgrounds.. I hate the expression, but I think I am fairly streetwise. The only judgement I make about people is (oversimplified I know)”do I like them or not ?” and we all make those judgements about each other.

  33. Raven says,
    “I don’t think the conversations here are so much about deconstructing Michael as simply trying to analyze and understand why we was perceived in certain ways by the media and the public at large. We can applaud that Michael stood up to the world and said he was beautiful, and perhaps we can decry how shameful it may have been for him to have been put into that defensive mode in the first place. But we can’t change the fact that society did have certain views and perceptions of him, and it is important for our purposes to understand and analyze the root causes of these perceptions and the impact they had. At least, that is how I see it.”

    I agree with the spirit of this, Raven. I’d like to suggest the root cause of this public pillorying BEGINS with the deep-seated racism, sexism, and homophobia that lie at the heart of our culture, all of which Michael challenged through many aspects of his behavior, his public presentation, and his performances. That’s what lies at the heart of this matter, I believe.

    In her essay “Difference That Exceeded Understanding,” Susan Fast has written:

    “I listened. I watched. This is how I wanted to remember Michael Jackson’s difference, as a virtuoso musician and dancer. As Madonna put it in her moving tribute to him at the MTV Video Music Awards in September 2009, he was a “magnificent creature [who] once set the world on fire.” But it is not possible to remember Michael Jackson’s difference as an artist without also remembering all the pain and controversy that surrounded him and how so much of this must also be understood as the result of his difference, difference much less easy, if not impossible, to embrace, so unsettling to the hegemonic order that it had to be contained through ridicule, misinterpretation, sensationalism, and finally criminal indictment. Michael Jackson’s subjectivity off the stage was disquieting. He was unknowable. He was impossible to “figure out.” While some of this difference was demonstrated through what was viewed in the mass media as “eccentric” behavior (the presence of his companion, Bubbles the chimp, the black surgical masks, the rumor that he wanted to buy the Elephant Man’s bones, some of this surely calculated to attract attention), it was really his more substantive, underlying differences that were most troubling— racial, gendered, able-bodied/disabled, child/teenager/adult, adult man who loved children, father/mother. These differences were impenetrable, uncontainable, and they created enormous anxiety. Please be black, Michael, or white, or gay or straight, father or mother, father to children, not a child yourself, so we at least know how to direct our liberal (in)tolerance. And try not to confuse all the codes simultaneously. Jackson tested the boundaries of subjectivity, not with the ironic distance of his contemporaries, Madonna and Prince, but with his heart on his sleeve, and he eventually lost. On those rare occasions when he tried to explain himself he seemed instead to dig a deeper hole. Many remained skeptical; too many normative social codes were in flux, and none were ever neatly put back in the container (again, unlike Madonna and Prince, who were both eventually domesticated—in “normal” ways).”

    I agree with what Fast has said here.

  34. “To me, he’s a force. I want instead to try to comprehend his transcendent inner qualities. Do I think he was perfect? No, of course I don’t think that, but neither do I believe he was a person just like the rest of us. I believe he was other-worldly—his essence so much more brilliant and radiant than other humans, and I think part of that was he was so utterly, stupendously unfiltered”

    Ara.. Your words sum-up perfectly how I feel about Michael too. This was what I was trying to express in my comment on 18 August (but I didn’t make a very good job of it!!). You have said it so much better. Interesting about the Japanese take on him too.. I didn’t know that.

    Many thanks.

  35. Back on topic (even if I’m late to the party):

    In the September 2006 issue of the British GQ magazine there is another interesting article about VG. In that the story about his NAMBLA meeting is repeated, although this time without naming the organization:

    “Gutierrez began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD. While attending a secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA, Gutierrez heard many references to Michael Jackson. So far as the world knew at the time, “Wacko Jacko” was just an eccentric. The fact he liked the company of young boys seemed no more suspicious back then than his hanging out with a chimp called Bubbles.”

    Another notable thing is that while in the TAZ article he claimed he was at the NAMBLA as a journalist, here he claims he was there “undercover with the LAPD”. Both claims are ridiculous. The LAPD will do undercover operations with their own trained staff and not with no-name immigrant journalists. And NAMBLA conferences are secret affairs they do not welcome journalists to report about them. So the changing of his story and the impossibility of his reasoning why he was there strongly suggests he lies about the reason he was there.

    It’s also very interesting why GQ do not name “the suspect organization”. Do they know it would put off their readers and make them suspicious of VG? If they are aware of how this would make VG look then why do they promote him? Because the whole article is about promoting a supposed movie planned to be made of VG’s book by two producer friends of VG, Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey. They are the owners of Word of Wonder productions (the producing company which also produces LaToya’s recent reality show, BTW…)

    So these are the things they tell about the planned movie in that article:

    “Despite the explosive nature of the events it describes, the script is actually a model of amorous propriety. “We wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie”, says Bailey.
    […]
    Central to the film, and the most controversial element in it, is the presentation of Jordie as a willing, even eager, participant in a relationship with a man he had worshipped since the age of four. “The only way the general public can view somebody like Jordie is as a victim,” says Bailey. “The fact that he might have entered into the relationship with Michael Jackson of his own volition is, for many people, tremendously problematic.”

    “In America we are up against the ‘eek’ factor. The Europeans don’t have that kind of squeamishness. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version.”

    “However, the producer remains understandably cautious about the ultimate success of his undertaking. “Indie movies have gone mainstream in the States,” says Barbato. “They’ve become a genre. But this project is independent in the true sense of the word. It goes outside any of the acceptable norms.”

    And the shocking thing is that this was published in a mainstream magazine like GQ. I doubt they didn’t realize what it is about.

    Another information I have is about the German paper that interviewed VG. In a 2010 Der Spiegel article it is stated that this paper actively advocated pedophilia in the 80s:

    “During this time, no other newspaper offered pedophiles quite as much a forum as the alternative, left-leaning Tageszeitung, which shows how socially acceptable this violation of taboos had become in the leftist community. In several series, including one titled “I Love Boys,” and in lengthy interviews, men were given the opportunity to describe how beautiful and liberating sex with preadolescent boys supposedly was. “There was a great deal of uncertainty as to how far people could go,” says Gitti Hentschel, the co-founder and, from 1979 to 1985, editor of Tageszeitung. Those who, like Hentschel, were openly opposed to promoting pedophilia were described as “prudish” — as opposed to freedom of expression. “There is no such thing as censorship in the Tageszeitung,” was the response.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679-3.html

    So it makes sense why VG was more open with them than with anyone else…
    So I don’t think it’s just paranoia to think there are certain agendas going on in some media, even if not totally openly.

    As for the Tageszeitung article. Besides what you quoted in this article I think this one is worth quoting from it as well. To the question why aren’t there more boys accusing MJ Gutierrez again gave a revealing insight into his “philosophy”:

    “They are all afraid”, says Gutierrez. Not of Michael and his power but of public opinion. “It is about homosexuality”, Gutierrez opines, “nobody wants to be the gay Jackson boy”. His theory: if Madonna had an affair or a love relationship with a minor boy it would be a much smaller scandal. At the schoolyard the boy would be a hero. As Jackson’s lover he is a faggot.

    “In a hundred years maybe such relationships will be accepted by society”, says Gutierrez. The story reminds him of Oscar Wild and his young lover, Bosi. As Gutierrez, who is a heterosexual himself, was looking for a publisher for his book in 1995, he hears people say that he glamourizes pedophiles.”

    So there you have VG expressing hope for social acceptance of pedophilia on the long term…

    1. Exactly, Suzy. And for me, that was really all the proof needed to confirm that this is VG’s agenda-as well as the agenda of all his cronies. While he is going above and beyond to link Michael’s name to pedophilia, he is also admitting that, in his view, it is really not a crime but something that he hopes one day will be socially acceptable.

      GQ may have known the nature of the “the suspect organization” VG was referring to, or may have not. I’m sure they were simply going by the info that Gutierrez was supplying them, and Gutierrez was being very careful what information to give them, and what to hold back. You are right; he probably felt much more open with Tageszeitung and their audience.

      1. If you are a journalist and someone tells you about a “suspect organization” isn’t your first reaction asking what that organization is? Plus IMO the things Barbato and Bailey said in that article – I just can’t imagine it would not raise red flags in any journalist/editor. I just can’t imagine you print an interview like that one with Barbato and Bailey and you don’t question it one bit. Unless you secretly agree with what they say and you support them in prompting their ideas. They are basically open about portraying alleged child molestation as some big “love story” and it did not raise any red flags with anyone at GQ? Hard to believe. These are the type of things why I suspect there are people even in the mainstream media who know exactly what VG’s agenda is and they are deliberately supportive of it. They may not all be pedophiles per se, but liberal extrimists.

        1. That could well be, and it certainly wouldn’t shock me. However, I also know that often times, these mainstream publications simply won’t dig that deep, but instead, will accept a story at face value (usually hoping no one else will bother to dig any deeper, either). They are rushed and have deadlines to meet, and usually those deadlines are more demanding than truth or ethics. Sad but true. In the case of Michael, as we know, publications look for the sensational angles that sell copy, and this was especially true after 2005.

Leave a Reply