The Current Conspiracy and…The Australian Connection? Pt. 2

Michael In Australia In 1987, Doing What He Did Best...Making Sick Kids Happy!
Michael In Australia In 1987, Doing What He Did Best…Making Sick Kids Happy!

Conspiracy theories by their very nature are just that-theories. And generally, I try to steer clear of them. But it has already been well established that most of Michael Jackson’s enemies are actually a very small but intimate group. That part is no longer a theory. In 2005, The Veritas Project established a firm and undeniable connection between Michael’s accusers, prosecutor Tom Sneddon, and all the various individuals who were playing a hand either in directly bringing about the allegations or in smearing Michael’s name in the media.

http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/index2.html

Since then, many astute Michael Jackson researchers have carried the seminal Veritas Project further to establish the very intimate connections between Michael’s accusers, their attorneys and respective therapists, as well as Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond, and a small host of former friends-turned-enemies. What has been well proven by this research is that the tangled web of relationships between Michael Jackson’s enemies goes well beyond the professional level. Indeed, these people are intimate friends who “stick together” and have one another’s backs. They attend one another’s weddings, birthday parties, and conduct themselves in every respect as long and trusted family friends. This point has by now been so well established that they don’t even bother trying to hide it anymore. Diane Dimond wrote openly and gloatingly about attending Gavin Arvizo’s wedding. Prosecuting attorney Ron Zonen gushes at seminars about what a fine, upstanding, young Christian man Gavin Arvizo has turned out to be, making it no secret in the process that he obviously keeps in regular touch. Diane Dimond and self-proclaimed Jackson family “friend” Stacy Brown can both be found on their respective Twitter accounts, coyly “wink winking” at each other as they openly strategize, pat each other on the backs, and defend each other against “those crazy MJ fans.” Time and again, photos surface of various members of this “happy family” at some personal occasion, toasting each other with gleeful smiles. Mind you, these are not in most cases private photos, but rather, photos they have purposely and brazenly made public as if to rub it in that, yes, they are all best buds; yes, they stick together, and yes, they are united in one very big, common purpose-the destruction of one individual, namely Michael Joseph Jackson. And that furthermore, they don’t care if Michael Jackson fans know it.

The Enemies of Michael Jackson-They Wine, Dine, and Toast Together! Diane Dimond and Ron Zonen On The Left; Stacy Brown (in red) On The Right!
The Enemies of Michael Jackson-They Wine, Dine, and Toast Together! Diane Dimond and Ron Zonen On The Left; Stacy Brown (in red) On The Right!

Not that any of them would ever admit, openly, to being such devious, mustache-twirling villains. I’m sure if you asked any of them why they all appear to be as thick as old gravy, they would put it down to something like being united in a common cause or common belief. Maybe they have genuinely convinced themselves that they are standing united against a world that continues to adore Michael Jackson. For many of them, this has been a more than two decades long obsession; indeed, a crusade. That is their common ground. But it begs an even bigger question. Why would individuals who claim to care so much about abused children spend the better part of two decades endlessly obsessing over one individual, rather than spreading their energies equally to include other individuals and cases for which there was obviously much more evidence and where obviously the perpetrators were actually guilty? Why are they more concerned with doggedly trying to prove one man guilty, rather than taking active interests in cases where guilt is obvious?

We know that Dimond, in particular, has a long and vested interest in Michael Jackson ever since she was forced to eat crow after the 2005 verdict. Similarly, many who found themselves embarrassingly on the wrong side of victory  in that case have been on a vendetta ever since to somehow “right” that outcome. Not surprisingly, these are the individuals who have gloried in the recent allegations brought by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck. But could it be more than this? Could it be that some of these same individuals are still pulling far more strings than we know? To be sure, Diane Dimond is definitely thick as thieves right now with Robson, Safechuck, and their attorney. But that still doesn’t necessarily mean she is a mastermind behind the operation. She could just be what she would have us believe-a salivating journalist “with the scoop.”

However, I am going to venture out on a limb to say that Wade’s so-called supporters and friends are, in fact, playing a much bigger role in current events. And while I can’t exactly say who the real masterminds are (give me a break, I’m a teacher and writer, not an investigative reporter!) I can safely say that I have been watching their patterns for enough years to start piecing some things together. Many of you may be wondering where the heck I am going with all of this cryptic talk about “the Australian connection.” Well, I’ll solve the mystery in this post, and will further reassure anyone (especially Michael’s many devoted fans and followers from Down Under) that this is not in reference to some huge, covert operation, but simply the piecing together of a few very obvious facts that I find too interesting to ignore.

But first, I would like to address the psychological mindset of a Michael Jackson hater, and in particular, the mindset of this rather small but highly organized group that is directly responsible for much of the current smear campaign against Michael. How does one even begin to explain why so much obsessive hatred is, again, directed toward one individual? While these people will mock MJ fans for the excessive amount of time they devote to discussing and researching MJ, it is clearly obvious that they are devoting just as much (in fact, even double and triple) that amount of time to Michael Jackson. Indeed, so great is their passion that they put up entire websites and facebook pages dedicated to this cause. They spend countless hours stalking fansites-even posing as fans-going undercover; they obsessively follow all news of MJ; they spam every article related to him, especially those that have unmoderated comments; they often bully and harass fans on social media. However, there is a particular sub group who are even more dangerous and devious in their tactics, since they will also regularly bully Michael’s friends, family, and supporters.

It's Not So Much That Haters Don't Do Research; It's That They Like To Distort and Misrepresent What They Find.
It’s Not So Much That Haters Don’t Do Research; It’s That They Like To Distort and Misrepresent What They Find.

It is a myth that Michael Jackson haters are people who do not do research. Indeed, I would daresay that a good many of them have an encyclopedic knowledge that would seriously challenge even the most dedicated fan. The problem is not that they don’t read court transcripts or do research, but rather, the fact that they will cherry pick what suits their agenda, ignore what doesn’t, and will filter all of it through their own biases. They do not mind purposely misrepresenting information, taking facts out of context, or running with half a truth-if they think they can get away with it. To be totally fair, I know that they level many of these same accusations at fan sites and vindication blogs, and there may be something to be said for the fact that we are both approaching whatever facts we present from a biased perspective. Obviously, a fan who wants to believe in Michael’s innocence will read the same document quite differently from a hater who wants to believe in his guilt.  Often, when I see debates between fans and haters on the internet, both sides will often link to documents and info, but in every case, the quickest comeback will be, “That information isn’t reliable. It comes from a fan site” or “That link isn’t credible; it’s just a hater site.” Both sides have some measure of validity to their claim, because in both cases, they are linking to sites with an obvious bias. However, it might be worth noting that if one is looking for a completely neutral, unbiased source of information on Michael Jackson’s “guilt” or “innocence” on the internet, that simply isn’t going to be found. And the reason is quite simple. It takes passion and dedication to invest the hours’ of one’s life it takes to set up a website, and to compile and archive information-not to mention the fact that court transcripts and documents are not given away freely. In short, people who care enough to do all of the above are people who are passionately dedicated, either through love or its polar opposite-hatred. I am sure you all know the old saying that there is a very thin line between love and hate. Well, the phenomenon of MJ hate is kind of like that. The truth is, there is a small but highly organized and dangerously obsessive group of individuals who are as determined to “prove” Michael’s guilt as his fans and vindicators are determined to prove the opposite.

One might ask, why so much hatred for Michael Jackson, a man who who was unarguably one of our greatest entertainers, who unarguably brought the world so much joy with his music and dancing, and who was obviously a great humanitarian who strove to do as much good for the world as possible? What could there possibly be about such a person to invoke such strong hatred, to the point that many individuals will endlessly obsess over it? Certainly there are far worthier figures in the world to project so much hatred and negativity upon.

Why Has So Much Hate Been Heaped On Someone Who Tried To Do So Much Good? That Is The Million Dollar Question.
Why Has So Much Hate Been Heaped On Someone Who Tried To Do So Much Good? That Is The Million Dollar Question.

My guess is that it is precisely because Michael Jackson inspires so much love and devotion. To understand how his haters think, you have to put yourself in the mindset of a hater. There is a general consensus among them that Michael Jackson is a man who was somehow “given a pass” and “got away” with his “crimes.” Rather than being satisfied that he was acquitted, and rather than accepting that there was never enough evidence to convict him of any crime, these people spend their lives on an endless crusade to convince the world that Michael Jackson is undeserving of benefit of the doubt, and undeserving of the accolades he continues to receive as a recognized musical genius. Another trait they often share is a need to somehow tear down Michael’s image and “prove” that everything the world most admired about him is an illusion-and sometimes a case of delusion. There seems to be a consensus that by somehow “outting” Michael Jackson of all his worst faults, they can strip away whatever blinders they think his admirers are wearing. And, of course, chief among those is the belief in his innocence. A common-and often noted-trend among his haters is just how few of them actually seem to be invested in any capacity with actual concern for abused children (though some put up a good cover of such, as I will get to shortly).

While Michael Jackson “hater” sites and facebook pages pop up with amazing regularity-as well as so-called “support” sites for the “victims” of Michael Jackson-how many sites exist that claim to support the victims of actual molestors like Jerry Sandusky, Jimmy Saville, or Ian Watkins? I conducted an informal search prior to this writing and, not surprisingly, found that there are none! So indeed, this seems to be a phenomenon unique to Michael Jackson. Why is that?

Well, this is a point that has been raised before, and not surprisingly, it is often raised whenever/wherever MJ fans and haters are prone to encounter each other and debate-that is, when they can manage to engage in any kind of civil dialog at all, which is rare. And I, too, have raised this question with some professed haters. Why the double standard, and why the apparent lack of interest in proven pedophiles as opposed to a man who was merely accused-if indeed the justification is the protection of children or concern for victims?

The answer is always a variant of the same response. Since those persons were actually convicted, there is apparently nothing to be gained from going on a crusade against them. So the assumed outrage against MJ, if they are to be believed, stems from a sense that justice hasn’t been served. Not only was Michael NOT convicted, but he continues to be loved and honored all over the world. So then, by that definition, if Michael had been convicted in 2005, would everything be just honky dorey peachey keen then? Because to me, that denotes a rather shallow approach to caring about children who have been abused. I am sure that the real victims of monsters like Ian Watkins-all of whom are still children as of this writing- would appreciate if they got one half the outpouring of “support” that these people waste endlessly on Robson, Safechuck, Chandler, and Arvizo. No, let’s be honest. This has nothing to do with the so-called victims, but everything to do with who the accused party is.

But I realize I still haven’t addressed the question of just what I think “the Australian conspiracy” is, or its role in current events. Obviously, I could go on and on all day about what makes haters hate, and still not arrive at any definitive answer, since to do so would involve getting much deeper into the human psyche than I have time and space for. However, since about 2010, the amount of organized MJ hate on the web has increased exponentially, and with it, an increasingly alarming amount of misinformation that is being spread. While this group is small in number, its perpetrators are frighteningly dedicated in their purpose. And because I believe their role in current events to be larger than mere spectators, they are worth looking into.

Why do so many fingers seem to point to Australia as the current hotbed of this latest conspiracy? Well, allow me to quote my favorite character of the stage, Shakespeare’s Iago: “I speak not yet of proof.” However, there are definitely a lot of “coincidences” that seem to be coming together, and which may bear closer scrutiny. It seems that these days-especially in the case of the current allegations being made against Michael Jackson-that there are an unusually large number of Aussies who appear to be sticking quite closely together.

Dylan Howard (left) of Radar Online, Wade Robson Ally and Fellow Aussie
Dylan Howard (left) of Radar Online, Wade Robson Ally and Fellow Aussie

Obviously, we have Wade Robson who is himself from Brisbane, Australia. Not to mention, we next have his web of family and friends (including at least one “cousin” whom Mike Par of the Wade Robson Facebook support page claims to get a goodly amount of information from).  Dylan Howard of Radar Online-who has become both Wade’s and Mike Par’s immediate “go to” media source for spreading filth in the media- is a fellow Aussie. This could all be coincidence, of course, but there is something else, too:

The MJFacts website, which seems to be the central headquarters for much of this current hater faction, appears to have very strong ties to Australia. For years, MJ fans have been trying to determine exactly who is behind this website, which mysteriously appeared in 2010 (an early rumor that it was Ray Chandler was eventually debunked). Since I have a life and a job, I don’t have time to do extensive research on hater sites or to try to track down who is behind them. I would much rather put that time and energy into researching Michael and his life. However, about a year ago I did stumble across some very interesting information on this website via Alexa.com, which charts the average visitors to most websites according to age, race, and geographic location (unfortunately, Alexa no longer lists this info for sites ranking less than 100, 000). Interestingly enough, MJFacts seems to have originated out of Australia, or at least its original domain was in Australia. According to Worthofwebcom, its IP address  is now a proxy out of Singapore, but a year ago Alexa’s graphs showed that most of the site’s traffic (well over 80%) still comes from out of Australia and that, interestingly enough, its average visitors tended to be white males between the ages of 35-44 (typically, I suspect, the age, gender, and ethnicity of most professional MJ haters. It’s also a bit telling that most of the key word searches for the site seem to come from people researching “Michael Jackson Nice Guy” (which seems an unusual search term, to say the least) and “Michael Jackson Brett Barnes.”  Honestly, I know these people are obsessed with the belief that Michael molested his friend Brett Barnes  (who is also from Australia) but why on earth would Brett Barnes’s name come up higher in the key word searches for this site than the names of the two kids he was actually accused of molesting?  Anyway, I highly suspect that the site is still from out of Australia, and that the Singapore proxy is just that.

A quick check of the site’s Whois history (btw this isn’t illegal stalking; all of this info is freely available in the public domain) reveals that the site does operate on a proxy server, which indicates that for whatever reason, they do not want the site’s exact geographic location known. The administrator’s name and location is listed as “private.” That may or may not mean much; administrators are entitled to keep this information private if they wish, but usually administrators who have nothing to hide do not mind making this info public.

Generally, the IP and hosting histories listed on these sites do not mean much, since they may extend to include websites hosted on those IP’s and servers long before the site in question. The current listing of the site’s Whois history indicates multiple IP and host changes but this will be the case if you look up most any website, including this one. However, it is known that this site has had to change host servers at least once due to a legal suit that was brought against them, when the administrator attempted to impersonate journalist and well known MJ defender Charles Thomson.  The resultant legal action taken by Thomson caused MJFacts to be permanently suspended from their then host server Yola. You can read more about that incident at the following links:

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/fact-checking-the-%E2%80%9Cmichael-jackson-facts-info%E2%80%9D-hater%E2%80%99s-website-part-1/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/welcome-to-the-main-hater%E2%80%99s-site/

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/01/anti-jackson-propagandist-posing-as.html

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/01/update-on-impersonation-saga.html

However, getting suspended from a host server isn’t a terribly huge deal, since host servers can be switched out as easily as changing socks. (A pain in the butt, yes, but nevertheless, it can be done). So after a bit of down time, MJFacts was back with a brand new host and a brand new “fake” IP from out of Singapore-and a brand new disclaimer. Rather than stating the truth about why they were taken down-that they were suspended as a result of legal action pending from their impersonating of an individual-they lied outright and stated that their move was necessitated by the actions of MJ fans. That is pure bullshit and, of course, they know it. Such lies are infuriating because not only did most fans know the truth, but because people who come to the site will naturally not know the difference. To add further insult to injury, the site administrators offered no recourse for the truth, since all comments from fans or even neutral parties are either blocked or ridiculed to the point that most won’t bother, and instead of having an email or contact info like most normal websites, readers are instead instructed to go to the Topix forum, which as anyone who knows anything about Michael Jackson knows, is nothing these days but a free-for-all hotbed where the sycophants of this website and of Desiree’s blog have taken over.

Both the strategy of this website and of Desiree’s blog-the two main hater sites responsible for the sycophant followers who now attempt to “terrorize” and monopolize most unmoderated MJ discussion forums and articles, have subtley changed over time, and their method is transparently obvious. One thing that every MJ hater is usually most quick to defend is that fact that they are, indeed, haters. They prefer that unknowing readers think of them as merely objective researchers. Obviously, adopting this tone and style would appear-on the surface at least-to give their sites more credibility, and thus, unsuspecting readers might be more apt to trust the information they report as reliable and objective.

However, a quick glance at MJFacts’s past and current screenshots tells the history quite plainly, and since we know that this site has not undergone any change of hands since its inception, it is quite obvious that this site began as a blatantly obvious hater site. What else would you call a site that advertises “Wacko Facts?” (I apologize for even posting these offensive screenshots here, but I really want you to see with your own eyes that this is one and the same website; thus, it is obvious that this site’s administrators have no interest in presenting objective facts).

The various screenshots from the MJFacts website, courtesy of Worthofweb.com, clearly show the site’s transition over the past four years from a blatant “hater site” to a much more cleverly disguised-but still transparent- “hater site” that pretends to have neutral objectivity as its goal. Note how the prominently displayed “Wacko Facts” of the site’s earlier incarnation has now been replaced by the much more neutral sounding “Michael Jackson Facts” and, finally, MJFacts (but make no mistake, it has always been the same site run by the same individual as before!)

2010:

mjfacts-1

mjfacts-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014:

mjfacts-3mjfacts-4Over time, perhaps realizing that one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar (and as a front to ward off the accusations that their information lacks credibility since it comes from an obvious “hater” site) they changed from “Wacko Facts” to the more deceptively neutral sounding “MJFacts” (a misleading name indeed since there are very few “facts” to be found on this website). You can also clearly see that, over time, they have purposely changed their tone and approach. This is for one reason and one reason only-so that unsuspecting readers who stumble onto the site will be “tricked” into believing they are reading more neutral, factual information than they will get from a fan site.

Even more curious is the weird strategy taken by the other notorious hater blog, Desiree Speaks. And for the record, I am one of those who believes firmly that Desiree is neither female nor black, let alone a 20-something-year-old college student as “she” claims. I know there are some who believe otherwise, including the admins behind this counter blog which was designed for the purpose of “outting” Desiree and exposing her many dubious web activities.

http://desireespeakssoolisten.blogspot.com/

However, something about this whole charade just feels very “off” to me, as it has from the get-go. For starters, I work with college students every day. The average college student has far too much on their plate to devote hours on end to researching and writing about Michael Jackson, not to mention the fact that in addition to studies and exams and extraccular activities, most have a demanding social life beyond school. Additionally, most college students can barely afford their textbooks, and yet we are somehow to believe that this 22-year-old college student can afford to pay website hosting fees, shell out money for expensive court documents (which even yours truly can only afford very sparingly on my teachers’ salary!) and brag (as she did in at least one entry) of forking out over a hundred and fifty bucks for an out of print edition of Victor Guiterrez’s book! It may be possible that there is a Ladonna Desiree Hill from Las Vegas who is the “Desiree” behind this site; however, identities can also be bought, borrowed, and stolen. I’m just not sure, but since this is splitting hairs anyway, let’s move on.

What I do know is that both of these websites mysteriously sprang up at about the same time, and both seemed to be a curious response/reaction to the outpouring of worldwide grief over Michael Jackson’s death-and, which, in turn, led to a mini-explosion of new fan sites and “serious” vindication sites. I can’t really vouch for what the cyberspace MJ world was like before June of 2009, but I do know that when I first started researching him in those weeks following June 25th, 2009, all I could find for the most part were fan club forums. Other than Aphrodite Jones’s well touted Conspiracy, Lynne Guests’s book and maybe a handful of others, there wasn’t much recourse for those seriously interested in researching what happened to Michael Jackson in 1993 and in 2003-2005.  Over the next few months, many individual blogs began popping up, and for the first time (I suspect) there were many websites dedicating themselves solely to the serious research of the allegations made against Michael Jackson.  It is no coincidence, then, that these “hater” blogs sprang up as a direct reaction to the sudden proliferation of vindication sites in late 2009. Clearly, someone viewed this new proliferation of vindication sites as a threat, as it meant that for the first time, factual information about the cases made against Michael Jackson could be had with the click of a mouse.

Desiree’s blog took an even more sneaky and circuitous route than MJFacts, beginning innocuously enough as the kind of generic “whatever is on my mind” blog that many young people start up, ostensibly to discuss any topic of burning interest. However, it didn’t take long for Michael Jackson to become the dominant subject of the blog. Weirdly enough, in her earliest entries, Desiree pretended to be a fan, if albeit a fan with some rather unconventional (and, I will admit, sometimes interesting) views. Her earliest entries defended Michael against accusations of pedophilia; defended him as a vitiligo sufferer, and defended him as the biological father of his kids (even if, again, via some outlandish theory that he desired to have “designer” children). However, it didn’t take long for the tune to be changed drastically. By the time of Michael’s first death anniversary, barely a few months into starting the blog, she was already writing posts that took stabs at his sexuality and which began to give more and more credence to sources written by his detractors. In so doing, she tried-unsuccessfully, I might add-to give the impression of a fan who, over time, had become a doubting skeptic. In truth, this was a very sneaky way to lure in fans and lull them with a sense that “hey, I’m on your side.” Within months-if indeed that long-she was responsible for writing some of the most scathing and hate-filled posts on Michael imaginable. And make no bones about it, Desiree is a hater, as I have had enough unfortunate correspondence with her in the past to personally see some of the most vile spewing against an individual-and his children!-I have ever witnessed.

But curiously enough, after many months of seeming inactivity when the blog appeared dead for all purposes, she suddently reemerged with these latest allegations. Like her cohorts over at MJFacts, she has given her blog a whole new facelift and a seemingly  (somewhat) new identity. Gone now are all the over-the-top, shrill rantings about “wacko Jacko.” Like her Aussie cronies, she is now making a very concentrated effort to make her blog appear like a neutral place where rational, thinking people can get objective information.

It's Not About The Kids; It's Not About "Victims"...It's All About Michael!
It’s Not About The Kids; It’s Not About “Victims”…It’s All About Michael!

And along with these newest allegations, we now have a whole new “celebrity hater” who has emerged on the scene, the alleged Mike Par who started up the Wade Robson support Facebook page, and who spams and bullies all over the internet under the guise of “allysforwaderobson.” Again, what strikes me as really odd about this whole thing is that I see no other “victim” of any alleged child abuse case-celebrity or otherwise-who gets their own Facebook page of supporters. And again, just as with all of these other organized sites, there is no apparent interest in the topic of child abuse other than as it pertains to Michael Jackson, and no interest in any victims of child sexual abuse other than those allegedly at the hands of Michael Jackson. So again, their topic of going concern is not the sexual abuse of children, but in Michael Jackson as a subject of study, ridicule, and dissection.

Again, I make the distinction between a few, random casual haters and what I call “professional haters” who obviously are riding Michael Jackson’s coattails for their own attention and glory. Individually, none of these people would be worth the time of day. But as a group, they do bear some looking into because they are obviously working as a unit and as co-conspirators. Mike Par may not, strictly speaking, be part of the “Aussie conspiracy” if indeed he’s an Amercian from New England (who really knows, or cares?) but the fact that he is in thick cahoots with many individuals who are directly part of the conspiracy is reason enough.

I have heard the rumors that Mike Par may even be Wade Robson himself; that Robson is the one behind the page and behind the alias. I have my doubts about that, and believe such rumors are stretching credibility a bit. That being said,  I will only say that I have seen a very interesting piece of evidence that definitely lends credibility to the theory that Robson has been far more pro-active in this page and in starting it than what they would have us-the naive public-believe. In other words, I have seen enough to convince me that this wasn’t just a case of some abuse victim who felt sympathy for Wade as a fellow abuse victim, and who (as per his baloney story) simply wanted to start a support group for him. I believe this guy and Wade have been in cahoots from the start.

From the Wade Robson Support Group FB page: A phony number bought with ads! 18,346 likes

It has already been a well established fact that Mike Par illegally inflated the “likes” on his FB page by inciting them with ads for products (placed mostly in Egypt) which even though he barely has twenty followers on Twitter and Youtube, managed to balloon his FB “likes” to over 10,000 in a shockingly short time. MattFTR, though he can sometimes be a little over the top in his rants, did an excellent job of exposing Par’s practices in this video:

[tube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqvL4JzA0M4[/tube]

I will add to this something else I KNOW is fact from just a very casual observation of this page. Most of the regular commentors on this page are fake Facebook profiles. There are a few that may be legit, but the profiles of all the most frequent commentors on the page are quite clearly fakes. They are easy to spot because if you actually click on them, you are led to FB pages that are, in fact, only “shells,” with no profile info, no other apparent “friends” and no indication whatsoever that a living, breathing person by that name actually created that page. Now, granted, that in itself doesn’t necessarily mean that the people are fake or that their comments aren’t genuine. The “fake” pages could well be a cover, designed exactly for this purpose-that is, to protect their actual identities from those who come prying. Perhaps. But it still indicates a kind of covertness and seakiness that usually isn’t necessary if everything is on the up and up. There is also a highly unusual number of persons commenting via pages that may have been made by real people, but rather than being personal pages, are simply pages created for the express purpose of commenting on this page.  If anyone were to go on my Allforloveblog Facebook page and click on any of the profiles of my usual commentors, you will find in every case that these are real profiles made by real people. The sheer prevalence of these “fake profiles” on the Wade Robson support page indicates they are no random accident. If it were simply random individuals protecting their anonymity, there might be a couple of such fake profiles, but c’mon, almost every single regular contributor? I have a hunch that Mike Par himself probably created most of these pages. Even if he didn’t, the sheer amount of time and energy it takes to put into creating fake profiles and fake pages speaks volumes about the mindset of these people.

Let’s go back to the question I posed earlier. Why do they do it? As I have already pointed out, it doesn’t seem to be about genuine concern for child abuse victims. Their outright mocking of many actual victims of child abuse; their continual harrassment of any of Michael’s friends who insist on his innocence; their use of Michael Jackson’s name continuously to further their own agendas, all contradict any noble ideas that they are in this for any purpose except hate and slander. Desiree has perhaps said it best, via one of her oft-used phrases: “I want to be on the right side of history” (a dead giveaway, btw, when she comments on various MJ articles under her sock puppet pseudonyms; she is so in love with her own phrase that she can’t resist using it). Mike Par endlessly tweets every talk show host and anyone with a platform who might give him five minutes of the day (but so far has found an ally only in Dylan Howard). Like Diane Dimond, who had delusions of grandeur of herself as the journalist who “exposed” Michael Jackson, they are narcissistic  sociopaths who are deluded into thinking they are on the verge of some great revisionist epoch; that they will somehow have the power to change how people think about Michael Jackson. They glory in thinking that the world will come beating on their doors, seeking interviews; maybe they think that one day they will get a Nobel peace prize or something.

Really, who knows what the “f” they think? However, when we look at this latest cast of characters in the Wade Robson/Jimmy Safechuck saga, it’s interesting to note that just like with the “big, happy” family that grew out of the ashes of the Arvizo case, we are seeing a coagulation of many of the same names and faces who are banding together. In the coming months, we are no doubt going to see this new “family” joining ranks to spread lies and false or misleading information. There is already evidence that Mike Par and his Aussie bud Dylan Howard are working together to create falsified articles (for sure, he is getting “tip offs” of these articles long before they appear in print). The purpose of this post isn’t to give them more power or attention than they deserve, but as a kind of red flag warning that they are out there. And like I said, though small in number, they are dangerously committed in their purpose.

For the record, I have never joined the ranks of those who have tried to get these sites shut down. That, to me, is censorship and an interference with right to free speech. As much as I disagree with the hater sites on principle, they have the right to exist. It sucks, but it’s the reality. Yes, I certainly question why the need for them, and I question what kind of individual wants to devote so much time and energy to hate. Nevertheless, I always say to them, “You’re free to say what you want on your own turf; when you come over to mine, it’s a different story.” This isn’t about people who disagree with me. My concern, however, is that the pattern does show an increasing amount of “coming together” within their ranks, and I don’t believe their role in these current allegations is completely incidental. I believe that at least a few of them may well be the movers and shakers behind it all. For sure, they are not, as they would have the naive believe, a grass roots movement comprised of random people who suddenly awoke one morning with a burning conscience about the so called “victims” of Michael Jackson.

However, lest we give any of them more credit than they deserve, here’s something I found that is interesting, and will share with you just for giggles.  Out of curiosity, I looked up the rankings of these sites on Worthofweb and compared them to this site. A web site’s worth is based on many factors, but generally, the biggest factors are the amount of traffic and unique visitors the site receives on a daily basis. In other words, a website’s “worth” is directly correlated to how many people are actually reading, visiting, and returning to the site. In turn, these figures directly correlate to the website’s ranking and can be said to be a measure of its overall popularity and, perhaps, influence. So…

Here is the net worth for MJFacts, a grand total of $396!

How much is mjfacts.info worth?

website worthestimated worth,
$ 396
WOW Score:40 / 100
WOW Rank:private

Here is the net worth for Desiree Speaks, which tops out at a whopping $138!

How much is desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com worth?

website worthestimated worth,
$ 138
WOW Score:38 / 100
WOW Rank:private

 

By contrast,  here is the networth for Allforloveblog!

How much is allforloveblog.com worth?

website worthestimated worth,
$ 1,223
WOW Score:47 / 100
WOW Rank:corporal

 

And, just out of further curiosity, I looked up the net worth of a fellow MJ site, Vindicating Michael:

How much is vindicatemj.wordpress.com worth?

website worthestimated worth,
$ 1,210
WOW Score:52 / 100
WOW Rank:sergeant

Wow! Maybe-just maybe-love really is  more powerful than hate after all, huh!

Next installment, I am going to take on some of the most common myths that this group is using as part of their anti-MJ propaganda.

177 thoughts on “The Current Conspiracy and…The Australian Connection? Pt. 2”

    1. Great article. I have one question. What do you think of Jim Clemente? I personally think he is biased.
      And on MJ Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones, haters say it is “biased” and “lazy”, but what is your honest opinion of the book.
      Thank you for your time.

      There is also an article by J. Randy Tarraborrelli, where he specifically claimed that Michael Jackson’s maids found pictures of boys with scanty clothing in his bedroom in 1993. They somehow hid the mystery photos from the police investigation.
      Could you comment on that please.
      I am also starting a MJ dance channel if you are interested.
      Thank you for your time.
      Keep up the good work.

      -EJM MJ#innocent forever

      1. Jim Clemente is definitely biased.

        Conspiracy was an early and seminal, important work in documenting the side of the MJ/Arvizo case that the public never really got to hear. Jones’s work was an important expose’ of what a sham the entire trial actually was. It was also for many readers an eye-opening account of how the media operates, as told by a journalist from within that camp. Some of the language is over the top, however (more than a few of her descriptions of Michael seem a bit fawning) and, frankly, it probably didn’t help that Jones was a young female journalist. I think this led some to think of her as just another fan, or as one who had become “smitten” with Michael over the course of the proceedings. I asked her that question once in an interview and she got understandably defensive about it, but admitted that he did have the kind of presence where even a hardened journalist couldn’t help but be “smitten” even if only for “five minutes.” I believe she went into the trial as someone who enjoyed his music but thought he was guilty, and then as she sat through the proceedings, came to share the jury’s conclusion. Her book is important and, of course, there is a good reason why the haters don’t like it.

        You have to remember that it has only been the same two maids who have consistently blabbed these kinds of lies to the press-Adrian McManus and Blanca Francia, both of whom sold their stories to Hard Copy for thousands of dollars. Yet McManus herself testified that the ’93 raid of Neverland was a total surprise. Michael was on tour and there was no advance “tip off” that would have given them time to dispose evidence.

      2. HI, Raven, is there a way I can delete or modify my comment on this website.
        I need to for some personal reasons.

  1. At some point in the past I came across a comment that struck me at the time as most probably true and you referred to the same idea here. Seems to me that ‘haters’ are angry people, really angry…and a substantial part of that anger stems from Michael’s advocates, defenders, researchers…those of us who don’t stop..don’t fade away..and consistently and with persistence counter, with facts, anything they prefer be the truth about Michael. I remember thinking at the time..’We can’t stop, ever..’ because that is precisely what they want. And, of course, the defender in chief, Tom Mesereau, is a popular target of derision and ridicule. He is unapologetically public in his defense statements whereas his partner, Susan Yu, seems to be ignored or forgotten. She is not public, you see.

    Thank you again, Raven. Always, always learn something from your posts.

  2. Thank you for your very informative post and research.
    Nothing in Michael’s world is random and the conspiracy (-ies) against him are more than a fact.
    God Bless.

  3. Great post, Raven.

    “Like Diane Dimond, who had delusions of grandeur of herself as the journalist who “exposed” Michael Jackson, they are narcissistic sociopaths who are deluded into thinking they are on the verge of some great revisionist epoch; that they will somehow have the power to change how people think about Michael Jackson.”

    This is precisely what I think about these haters. I think a part of their excercise is some kind of weird “power trip”. They love the idea that with their falsehoods and manipulations they have the “power” to bring down the reputation and legacy of such a huge superstar as Michael Jackson – a legacy that he worked on for over 40 years. And they also enjoy to have some type of power over MJ fans – ie. the power to emotionally upset them, make them feel bad etc. That’s just the common bully power trip. That is why they do not care about actual proven child molesters or those accused who are still alive. In fact, I have seen some of them advocating and promoting ideas and books by actual real, convicted child molesters such as Carl Toms or by pedophilia advocates such as Victor Guiterrez. I have seen them borrow NAMBLA vocabulary and theories.

    I think Desiree is more or less who she says she is (ie. a 20-something black female from Vegas, but like you I have doubts about her claimed studies). I think she’s an extremely narcissistic personality and to her it’s all about herself and proclaiming her supposed “intellectual superiority” over others – in this case MJ fans. Just think of the title of her blog! I actually can believe that she started out after MJ’s death and first she felt she was a “fan”. I have seen old posts from her from the time (not on her blog, but in comment sections of news articles) defending Michael. But she was just a bandwagon fan after his death and I think after a while she realized that being a hater would draw more attention to her which was better suited to her narcisstic personality. And I think that’s why she turned. The story that she once gave on VMJ about why she turned is clearly just BS. She said she got convinced of MJ’s guilt by a tabloid article she read in which one of MJ’s doctors was quoted as saying that in the early 2000s MJ asked him to give him medicine which would suppress his “desire for young boys”. The story was just ridiculous on so many levels (there is no medicine specially designed to supress sexual desire for young boys – there is only medicine that generally supresses any type of sexual desire and libido). There is no serious researcher and fan who would be swayed by such an uncorroborated and clearly BS tabloid story.

    Over this past weekend I have read the book Otherness and Power Michael Jackson and His Media Critics by Susan Woodward. It’s a small book, you can read in one-two hours but I found it very interesting. In the book Woodword analyzes the language and beliefs, misconceptions etc. about MJ in three writings which were very unfairly hostile to him. One is the 1985 book Trapped: Michael Jackson and The Crossover Dream by Dave Marsh, the other is Maureen Orth’s 2003 article Losing His Grip and then the 2009 book The Resistible Demise of Michael Jackson by Mark Fisher.

    It was interesting that despite of being hostile to MJ all of these authors attribute Michael great power – and even some kind of semi-god status and they do seem to have some great admiration for him when you analyze their language. And the source of their anxiety regarding MJ seems to stem for this perception. Along with MJ’s “otherness” of course, but they see it connected to his power and even perceive it to be the source of his power. This is interesting because I so often hear it from haters. Their stance to me seems to be: “I’m saying all these hateful things about him to prove to myself and the world that I do not worship him.” They seem to have this polarized extremist view of him that you either have to be an “idol worshipper” of MJ or have to have extreme hate for him and think the worst of him. For example, in conversations about the allegations, I cannot count how many times haters try to come back with the “argument”: “He was not a god.” And I’m always puzzled when they throw that out there, because why do you even say that in that context? No one said he was a god. There aren’t only two options that he was either a child molester or god, right? But to these people for some reason it’s almost as if these are the only two choices.

    Like you said hate and love (or admiration) are often very close together. And I feel that a lot of in these haters that their hate may stem from some type of self defense mechanism to not to be sucked in and to become MJ admirers/fans. It may sound strange, but I do think deep down, in their most repressed layers many of them have admiration for him and the extreme hate is a mean to suppress that admiration. Not unlike those exteremely homophobic closet homosexuals.

    Of course, not all of them are like that, but IMO many. Others are just on the power trip I mentioned earlier or are narcissists like Desiree.

    1. That story actually contradicts another one Desiree told, which was that she converted after reading an article by Roger Friedman from 2006 that made some kind of claim about a family in South America that Michael was paying allotments of $300,000.

      The same debate regarding identity has cropped up with another black female blogger who claims to be an MJ hater, Vanity Goddess (though I haven’t heard anything of her in years). I think one reason people tend to doubt them is because, although there are a few exceptions, MJ haters by and large tend to be white and male. It seems a bit unusual for black women to invest that much hate in him, not to say it isn’t possible, of course. But some time ago, someone proposed a theory (I am sorry I cannot remember who it was; I wish I could so I could give them credit) that some of these haters may be posing purposely as African Americans to give more credibility to their positions. It helps propagate the idea that even Michael’s own (other African Americans) do not support him. And passing themselves off as women gives an additional layer of credibility. This is what I’ve heard but of course it may all be horse puckey.

      1. “That story actually contradicts another one Desiree told, which was that she converted after reading an article by Roger Friedman from 2006 that made some kind of claim about a family in South America that Michael was paying allotments of $300,000.”

        Which just shows again that she’s lying about her motives (just like about so many other things).

        And BTW, that claim by Friedman came from the lawsuit between Michael and Marc Schaffel in 2006. Schaffel added this claim to his claims in the middle of the trial and it’s obvious he did it to try to blackmail Michael into a settlement with it.

        Thing is with Friedman you always know who his current source is because he is always on the side of that source. During that 2006 suit he teamed up with Schaffel and against MJ and his whole tune changed drastically compared to 2005. And he wrote a couple of articles about this supposed mysterious payment to a South American family in $300,000. He didn’t just suggest, but he flat out say that this was a pay off of a family who felt MJ molested their son. And Friedman then finished each and every article he wrote about it saying – and I give you two direct quotes:

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

        From another article:

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

        If this is not transparent for a blackmail attempt to try to make MJ settle then nothing is. What Friedman failed to report is this:

        —-

        Accountant Disputes Claims Against Jackson
        13th July 2006
        By Linda Deutsch
        A forensic accountant hired by Michael Jackson’s lawyer testified Wednesday that a former associate who is now suing the singer used money from a Japanese record production company for the down payment on his own $1.9 million home rather than for the business expenses he claimed.
        Jan Goren, who showed jurors how he traced millions of dollars through the various bank accounts of F. Marc Schaffel, also said he found no substantiation for a $300,000 payment Schaffel claimed he provided to a mysterious “Mr. X” in South America on Jackson’s behalf.
        The testimony was presented as the trial neared the closing arguments phase. Schaffel’s lawsuit claims Jackson owes him $1.6 million for various endeavors he worked on for the pop star.
        Jackson’s side has sought to show Schaffel enriched himself at the singer’s expense, outweighing any sums that might actually be owed.
        Goren challenged Schaffel’s claim that he received $400,000 from a Japanese company called Music Fighters which was seeking to buy rights to Jackson’s “What More Can I Give,” an ill-fated charity recording intended to raise money for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
        Schaffel had testified that he split the amount with Jackson, each taking $200,000, but maintained that he used his half to pay business expenses.
        Goren said according to his financial detective work that was not true.
        He said the $400,000 was wired by Music Fighters on Feb. 27, 2002, to Neverland Valley Entertainment, a company Schaffel started with Jackson, and the next day it was transferred into Schaffel’s personal account.
        The accountant noted that in a deposition Schaffel said Jackson was given $200,000 in cash and the rest was kept in the Neverland Valley account to pay bills.
        “That did not happen,” said the witness.
        “Is there any support that 200,000 (dollars) went out to Mr. Jackson?” asked Thomas Mundell, Jackson’s attorney.
        “Nothing,” said the witness.
        Goren then used an easel and marker to trace Schaffel’s home purchase, showing the down payment, escrow fees, mortgages and the full price of the home at $1.9 million. He said the source of the down payment was the personal money market account, “and 400,000 that went into that account was Music Fighters money.”
        On the purported delivering of $300,000 to “Mr. X” in South America, Goren testified that Schaffel never claimed the amount until this year and “there is no check, no moneys leaving a bank … no bank statements, no ledgers.”
        “I have nothing that corroborates it from a documentary point of view,” he said.
        He noted that the entry was coded “EFT,” which refers to an electronic fund transfer to another account. But he said the amount was never transferred to or from any account.
        “My conclusion on this is it is not a valid claim,” Goren said.
        On cross-examination, Schaffel’s attorney, Howard King, challenged some of the accountant’s opinions and asked if he considered testimony by other witnesses who said they knew about some of the disputed transactions.
        Goren said he read depositions by Jackson’s business manager, Allan Whitman, but had not questioned him about any of the records.
        “You didn’t ask Mr. Whitman to see any of Michael Jackson’s records or Michael Jackson’s tax returns?” asked King.
        “I did not,” said Goren.
        “Would you have liked to have seen them?” King asked.
        “I would like to see Mr. Schaffel’s tax returns,” Goren said.
        In spite of King’s claim that he was wrong on some figures, Goren consistently asserted that there were no documents to support some of Schaffel’s claimed expenses.
        “Even when there are documents that slightly support it,” he said of one charge, “it fails and it fails miserably.”
        Asked why Whitman and others in Jackson’s financial inner circle would have approved some large payments to Schaffel, Goren said, “I think they trusted Mr. Schaffel.”
        On the issue of the $300,000, King asked if Goren had seen a receipt from a Hungarian bank.
        “No, you can show me,” said Goren.
        But it wasn’t until redirect examination by Mundell that the receipt was displayed in court. It showed a withdrawal of $258,000 from a Hungarian bank three years before Schaffel claims he was dispatched to South America on a mission for Jackson.
        “Of course this does not influence my opinion,” Goren said. “This transaction took place three years before. So what? How does it end up in South America? I don’t see the connection at all.”
        King asked Goren if he ever asked Mundell why no one had asked for the name of the recipient of the purported $300,000 payment. Goren said he had not.

        Source: Associated Press

        —-

        So the $300,000 payment simply did not exist and could not be supported from a documentary point of view. In fact, Schaffel was trying to “prove it” by showing a bank withdrawal of $258,000 from a Hungarian bank dated three years before the supposed payment in South America…

        He simply threw it in to try to blackmail Michael into a settlement with bad publicity.

        1. Thanks for the research. Amazing how Michael’s fans are more diligent and effective investigators than any current ‘professional’ journalists. The prospect of Schaffel becoming the stepfather of Michael’s two oldest children would be terrifying, if I really believed he and Debbie Rowe are actually going to marry. Sometimes I think the smartest thing Michael ever did was father a third child with another woman.

        2. This is exactly why it pays to research all angles of these stories. Thanks for the info. It struck me as sad that the victims of 9/11 received nothing out of the What More Can I Give project, while Schaffel ended up with-we can presume-a multi million dollar home out of the deal.

  4. Beautifully clear and concise analysis. Few things I’d like to note- Spending inordinate amounts of time on facebook, twitter, blogging etc. has become a disease of sorts – a compulsion – Newsweek article back in 2012 highlights some of the mental distresses and disorders that can develop when we are too much involved in cyberliving and not enough in the real world. http://www.newsweek.com/internet-making-us-crazy-what-new-research-says-65593 – Have noticed a particular phenomenon- It’s possible that these MJhaters may have some sort of psychosis.

    It’s been noted when people who become obsessed with the idea that only their opinion is reasonable and important, and that people need to agree with it and if they don’t that opposing person needs to be demonized, cyberstalked and harassed. With this obsession comes the idea that one can say things that they might not normally say and behave in ways they may not normally behave because they are not looking other people in the eye, nor is there any accountability for the behavior. Instead of intimate hand to hand combat it’s distance verbal missile dropping- less guilt involved when the damage is not up close and personal

    There is no tonal quality, no body language, no facial tics that give the other person any clues to the veracity of our statements, our condition, our reality so we can invent who we are. Many people live actual alternate lives on the internet that have no real basis in truth, which in turns leads to depression and other psychosis. Sometimes a feeling of omnipotence where there is a belief that what we say is heard world wide when in fact it doesn’t reach all that far and this is what you bring up at the end. It is something we all need to remember.

    The “worth” of our blogs and websites, which is our Voice/Reach across the world is something to really consider and it’s not as wide as we might wish to believe. Neither then, are the hate sites. It is an unfortunate fact that members of the MJ fan community are some of the worst offenders in promoting these MJjhater’s sites. They don’t do so purposefully but out of disgust, fear or concern and the idea that everyone needs to SEE what the haters are posting – however, by clicking the links and sharing the urls with others the “worth” of those sites increase. Same goes for articles written by Stacy Brown, Dylan Howard, Dimond etc.

    Michael said – “to read it, is to feed it- so why do we keep fooling ourselves”

    Of course, we need to educate others on the activities of the MJhaters but copy pasting the information is far better than just sending someone the url with “Have you seen this?” or “I can’t stand Dimond. just look what she wrote ” with a link to her Daily Beast BS. Instead, we should do as you did, use the screenshots to explain what you meant about the MJfacts sites. The “worth” of their sites would go down even lower if Mj fans didn’t spend time reading their biased garbage and the “worth” of positive blogs that reveal the reality of the man, Michael Jackson, would increase if we direct people to those urls instead.

    One other example – Let’s breakdown Twitter Voice/Reach/Presence using our own MJJJusticePrjct twitter- We have almost 6000 followers – of that perhaps half are dormant for whatever reason- out of the remaining 3000-let’s say half of them aren’t addicted as mentioned above and are living real lives which means they don’t watch their timeline 24/7 so they don’t retweet much, out of remaining 1500, half love his music don’t want to get involved in drama so only post sexy pics of him and videos, what they ate for breakfast, how bored they are, or how much they hate their parents, sisters etc… out of the remaining 750 – some don’t speak English so they must translate — so all in all, a follower count of 6000 is NOT really 6000. Only a small percentage retweet the positive Michael Jackson information – which we call “throwing pebbles and rippling” – Would say honestly, less than 200 people at any given moment are giving their timelines enough attention as to retweet MJJJP information regarding Michael on a consistent basis.. and retweets ARE the indication of your reach on Twitter. Not to say we don’t have a voice, sometimes twitter analytics has reported, we had mention reach of 647,000 … but that’s on rare days when something amazing happened like the release of Xscape- generally it ranges far less.

    Why do I bring it up? Because Mike Par has 70 followers on Twitter and other MJtrolls even less …. so you do the math.

    We don’t engage MJtrolls like Mike Par on twitter for this very reason- He has no voice, no reach – He basically talking to himself and 2 other people who may also be himself. We don’t address him or other MJtrolls on Twitter either because when you address someone you must use their @name .. and when you do ..that brings them to the attention of your followers or anyone else who is reading your timeline for whatever reason.

    The whole point of my rambling is that WE, as a community have means of not reinforcing these haters … we need to learn how to harness our collective positive voices and promote one another as MJAdvocates, rather than unconsciously aiding and abetting these obsessive internet trolls who have nothing better to do than attack Michael or the people who defend Michael.

    Let’s find ways to be more efficient, information sharing MJAdvocates while online, and get offline and LIVE to remain mentally healthy – Michael spent much of his life confined which most likely contributed to his deep sense of loneliness. He wished to be free of the restraints of fame. His lyrics.. “I want ot be free – free as the wind blows, fly away just like the sparrow” reverberate in my soul. He dreamed of walking freely in a park without being hounded by paps or fans. We do him honor by defending him but don’t forget to pay him respects also by taking a leisurely stroll in a park, breathing in fresh air, watching children playing on swings, climbing trees, running though rain puddles and listening to the birds.

    1. Thanks for the post, and I will comment more (as well as to all others here) when I get time. Just to clarify, I haven’t posted any links to their sites. The one link above that is contained in the post is to an anti-Desiree site. My take on it, of course, is that most fans know these sites are out there, and they know where to go IF they wish to keep up with some of their doings. Casual readers here may run across these sites anyway if they are researching MJ. It’s better that they are at least informed of what these sites are, rather than just stumbling onto them by accident and thinking they are reading objective information presented by researchers or actual journalists. I do understand where you are coming from, but in setting out to do a series on exposing these latest allegations and who is responsible for A: Starting them, and B: Feeding, spreading, and distorting them is somewhat impossible to do without at least acknowledging who some of the players are on that field. I did promise as part of this series that some of my objectives would be to look into the “current conspiracy” and who those players are. I see fans quite often who are very upset or disturbed about some of the misinformation these trolls are spreading, especially those who haven’t yet caught on to who they are or how they are operating. I think of it more as being aware of who the enemies are, rather than feeding or promoting them. But admittedly it is the same catch-22 as when we talk about any aspect of the media and Michael Jackson. It is somewhat impossible to discuss it in any form without in some way bringing attention to the very beast that is responsible. As I am sure you know (or anyone who has been reading my posts for any length of time) it is not my intent to dwell on these topics, and the sooner they can be moved on from the better. Trust me, I would certainly much rather be having that pleasant walk in the park! In fact, I have found increasingly that my happiest moments here lately are when I can just put on Michael’s music (or a favorite dvd) and forget all of the internet drama.

    2. Totally agree we need to tell fans TO NOT VISIT TOPIX OR MJ “facts”.com.
      Unfortunately, part of the administrator’s team, Andreas and Pea are constantly commenting on Youtube as “Andreas Moss” and Paper-or-Plastic, spreading misinformation. Seriously everywhere I go related to Michael Jackson, but still.
      I love that song from the extended BAD version too. My favorite is I’m So Blue

  5. While the Twitter and Facebook haters may have very limited impact, we shouldn’t overlook the mass media impact of the UK tabs, the NY Post, the NY Daily News, and entertainment TV, which regularly feature lies and distortions about Michael, like the recent ‘unsanitary’ and ‘paid off twenty-four boys’ stories that they disseminate, even though the stories don’t meet even minimal journalistic standards for truth and accuracy. Millions of people are bombarded with these attacks on Michael, from sources with far more credibility than a few nutjobs on the internet.

    It’s hard to understand why the estate, with its highly-paid lawyers and public relations firm, allows this crap to go unchallenged. Marty Singer, for example, is an attorney who takes no prisoners when it comes to the reputation of his clients, even when unfavorable stories appear to be based in truth.

    As for formerly positive bloggers going negative, I’ve also noticed the dynamic going the other way. A commenter on a New York Times article about Michael made scathing remarks about his fans ‘worshipping’ him, and regarding him as an “angel”. A few weeks later, a poster with the same distinctive name and location began posting on a very active MJ forum purporting to be a devoted fan. While Charles Thomson has done stellar work defending Michael against journalistic abuse, before Michael’s death, he was the mastermind behind the pejorative MJ Star site. In death as well as in life, Michael Jackson is surrounded by “shape shifters”.

    1. “While Charles Thomson has done stellar work defending Michael against journalistic abuse, before Michael’s death, he was the mastermind behind the pejorative MJ Star site. In death as well as in life, Michael Jackson is surrounded by “shape shifters”.

      Shape shifters … I love that and it’s so accurate. thank you !!

    2. “ It’s hard to understand why the estate, with its highly-paid lawyers and public relations firm, allows this crap to go unchallenged. Marty Singer, for example, is an attorney who takes no prisoners when it comes to the reputation of his clients, even when unfavorable stories appear to be based in truth”

      Because his attorny has a hard time defending his own client. This is what Weizman said about MJ during the 2005 trial when he was not representing him. Michaels attorny then TM was ademant that settling the case in 1993 was a bad decision and made no secret of it, with Michaels consent

      Asked if he thinks Michael is guilty :
      “No, I do not. Bottomline I wasnt there in 1993 I wasnt there in 2003. I CHOOSE to believe he is not a pedophile, I choose to believe he didnt molest anyone, I hope I am right. “

      So says the man who settled the case for Michael in 1993 and in whose hands Michaels defense lies today. As if believing in ones innocence for a defense lawyer is a free choice and not a conviction(even if only for the stage) based on evidence, logic thinking and legal skills. If that was his state of mind then, no surprise Michael had little confidence in his defense and thought settling would be best.
      Putting the blame for settling on the client(or a deceased lawyer)is a dirty thing for a lawyer to do. He goes on criticizing his former clients conduct, making him look disrespectfull, eccentric and hard to control while Mesereau always said Michael was the easiest and most co-operative client to work with.
      That to me is the talk of a man who knew he did Michael wrong and never expected to work for him again. Which I am sure would not have happened if Michael was alive,especially not in this case.
      I cant believe they have not contacted TM at all, considering their track record with the first accusations and how different TM handled the case.
      I commend Tom Mesereau for keeping the pressure on them not to settle.

      1. I love Mesereau because he really does believe in Michael’s innocence – and you can tell that he cares for Michael too. Frankly, Mesereau is the best thing that happened to Michael during the 2003-05 allegations and I wish all people were like Mez in Michael’s life. Then we would not have any of these problems we have. I also wish he had been in Michael’s life in 1993.

        I have to say I agree about Weitzman. He does not care about MJ in my opinion and since he does not care enough to check out what really happened to him, he gives these BS cop-out answers with no conviction. That’s terrible from a lawyer who represents him. There is also an interesting part in Ray Chandler’s book. Here:

        “Feldman, Shapiro, Hirsch, Weitzman & Weis, (Oy vey!), all were part of a neat little “old boy” network, just the ticket for getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly.”

        And here’s another quote from the book:

        “We have a unique situation here,” Hirsch added. “Bob [Shapiro] and I have known Howard Weitzman for at least twenty-seven years. Howard and I had an office together for many years. We’ve had cases together and Bob has had cases with him as well. He’s one of my dearest and oldest friends, which has nothing to do with my approach to the case. If I have to to take him head-on I’d do it, and be knows I’d do it.
        Lauren Weis also happens to be a good friend of mine. She’s a personal friend and she trusts us. We’re not playing both ends against the middle here we have entree to both sides in this case, which is very unique. And if something is going to get done we have the ability to make it happen before it gets into all-out war.”

        Feldman, Shapiro and Hirsch were the Chandler lawyers. Lauren Weis was the LA Deputy DA who according to Ray Chandler’s book was a good friend of Richard Hirsch, the lawyer who represented Evan against the extortion charges. (No wonder then that the DA never investigated it seriously.) And then there is Weitzman. So they were all part of a “neat little old boy network” that made the Chandlers hopeful for a settlement. That’s what meant by “getting this nightmare over and done with — quietly”. And how right they were about it! I think Michael was advised to settle because that was the best solution for all the lawyers involved on both sides. Whether it was the best for Michael? No one really cared about that. Bert Fields did not want to settle. I wish he had stayed on the case.

        Mesereau does have a point not to totally trust Weitzman. And last time he talked to King Jordan Radio he also mentioned that in 2005 Weitzman’s law firm backed out of the case shortly before the trial. He said he cannot tell for certain but he felt that it was because Weitzman felt they would lose the case.

        1. Many call Chandlers book total bs. But like many books that use facts mixed with fiction, it includes facts that can be verified and as a lawyer Chandler knew legal implicatons of what he wrote and what made sense or not.

          It needs explaining , but imo they made some crucial mistakes, not only Weizman but also Fields. Branca was the one btw who insisted on replacing Fields. There was disagreement in the team of lawyers how to handle the case and uncalled for interference of Elizabeth Taylor on the defense strategy with her lawyer. Chandler took advantage of the mess.
          Weizmans forte is (business)litigation which most of the time ends in settlement. He is bad at(criminal)defense and lost many of his high profile cases. Hence maybe backtracking in 2005.
          I believe in the old boys network and I believe it goes further than those named by Chandler. It is a whole network of lawyers who help each other out, are connected to the DA office. Not always act in the best interest or even undermine the interest of their client. Michael was a victim of this conflict of interest till he died and after.

          1. I believe this too.The lawyers did what worked for them , not their client.
            When you watch the Frozen In Time seminar, the only person defending MJ is Mesereau , his lawyer from 93 Carl Douglas is so far up Larry Feldmans behind it is pathetic.
            For them not to have contacted Mesereau , as of yet, from a strategic point , must reinforce for Wades lawyer ,that they are not preparing for anything , if they end up losing and getting to court.
            I think that is Mesereaus point.
            I know there were reasons for settling , however, Michael is gone, there isnt a fragile client anymore .
            I just dont think these people are in a hurry to draw attn as to why MJ was advised to settle, becasue certainly all things point to his innocence
            These people were and remain friendly .
            I think that is why Cochrane recommended Mesereau , because he isnt part of the circle, he is only interested in proving his clients innocent
            I did google big cases Weitzman had won and the only one I found was Delorean, and it was obvious he was being set up by the Feds.
            Other than that …I dont see him doing anything but hashing out settlements , so I sure that is why Mesereau thinks Wades lawyer is salivating

    3. “While the Twitter and Facebook haters may have very limited impact, we shouldn’t overlook the mass media impact”

      And Twitter/FB haters actually started to ally with mass media (eg. RadarOnline) which gives a platform to their narrative. You know, there we will always be in disadvantage because all we can offer is a reasonable analysis of facts and not salacious headlines which sell articles. That’s why the media always will gravitate to the accusing side – they are the ones providing the salacious claims and headlines.

      1. Suzy says, “And Twitter/FB haters actually started to ally with mass media (eg. RadarOnline) which gives a platform to their narrative. You know, there we will always be in disadvantage because all we can offer is a reasonable analysis of facts and not salacious headlines which sell articles.”

        I don’t know about Safechuck, but there is PLENTY of salacious info, gossip, innuendo on Wade freely available on the internet. A quick Google search of Wade Robson and drugs, or Wade Robson, Justin Timberlake, and Britney Spears, or even Wade Robson and Chris Brown, will pull up some very interesting stuff.

        1. One potential pitfall to keep in mind with that approach is that we can dig up personal dirt on Robson from here to Kingdom Come and those who support him and believe he was sexually abused will still say, “None of that excuses what supposedly happened to him as a child.” BUT just as with everything that was dug up on the character of the Arvizos, including their history of con schemes, it does help to establish a pattern of behavior. If he has established a pattern of betrayal and abuse in other relationships, it makes it seem more likely that he would do it to anyone, including even the man who mentored him.

        2. Also, Wade used to have a website with a forum. It does not exist any more, but some portions of it can be found with the Wayback Machine. The forum was moderated by Wade’s cousin, Jonathan. Back in 2004 this conversation
          took place between him and a fan of Wade’s:

          Fan: “I have to ask you something – is Wade such a nice person in real life? Razz”

          Jonathan: “he’s generally very quiet, kind of shy, negative part is that he
          is very prideful – which can be bad.
          having pride to a certain extent is good but when you are too prideful i don’t think is a good thing, and i know for a favt that his pride is way too much for his own good. cause i’ve known him for awhile now.”

          Fan: “What do you mean? Is he from the mean kind honey? What does he do? Neutral”

          Jonathan: “i’m not going to get into specifics but when he does something wrong he will never apologize, when it’s clearly his fault, he always has to get things his way no matter what, even if it hurts other people, sorry girls truth hurts sometimes. but its the truth.”

          —-

          The interesting part is the last part to me, about always having to get his way even if it hurts other people.

    4. Yes, I’m well aware of CT’s past history with MJ Star and yes, that did cross my mind in reference to this alleged imposter behind the MJFacts site. I don’t believe, however, that he has ever had any affiliation with the MJFacts site. It doesn’t make any sense why he would go to such great lengths to have this whole double identity (posing as both a defender AND adversary) and if he was operating such a site it would stand to reason that he would be a lot smarter than to use his own name in an email. Also, taking legal action against himself, even if we buy that it was just to cover his own tracks, makes no sense. At best, such conjecture is grasping straws.

      But what you point out IS an interesting phenomenon. There are people out there like Roger Friedman, for example, who have flip flopped so much that I honestly don’t know WHICH side they are on. Maybe they think it makes them “seem” objective but in reality, it just makes them come across as rather schizophrenic.

      Charles Thomson, in particular, has a very blunt personality and an even blunter way of phrasing things that I think sometimes rubs fans the wrong way. Because of this, some of what he writes can come across as quite barbed when he’s being critical, especially as he was in a lot of his MJ Star posts. I’ve disagreed quite vehemently with Charles on some things, but I do respect the good work he has done on Michael’s behalf. Whatever one can say about him, he has done fantastic work when it comes to exposing the media hypocrisy and conspiracy against Michael, which of course is where he excels. I’ve accepted long ago that I probably won’t agree with him on anything else, but as the old saying goes, I don’t wish in every case to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Speaking of “shape shifters” I guess you have heard the furor over the pics of Michael that Dr. Treacy used in a new video? I’m still a bit stunned by that. Trying hard not to rush to judgement, but why on earth would he do that?

      1. Ok I saw it. gave me headache right away.
        I maybe sceptical, but I never felt comfortable with this man and his claimed friendship with Michael.There is no excuse for this.

        1. Yeah, I saw your question earlier but I wasn’t sure if it was in reference to that or something else, so I was going to come back to it later. Treacy posted photos in a video that show Michael under sedation for a procedure. He isn’t named in the vid and his face is partially covered but it’s not as if everyone isn’t going to know right away who it is. However, the vid also features other patients of his (none as famous as Michael, of course). Perhaps those people gave their consent, but obviously, Michael isn’t around to give his.

          1. Dr. Treacy very recently tweeted to someone, in response to a request to remove the photo “this was one slide from 64 in a medical lecture for some reason it defaulted to it and was meant to be private. Apologies.” He didn’t address whether or not he had permission to photograph the procedure on MJ or anyone else prior to the procedures being performed. Inasmuch as botox procedures are all over the internet perhaps consent to photograph is buried somewhere in consent forms signed by patients. Although, let’s face it, Michael Jackson would never have knowingly consented to be photographed during a medical procedure.

          2. I dont buy it that it happened by accident. People never use Michaels name and face by accident. Even if it was for a lecture Im sure Michae would never agree to it. Treacy has always promoted himself as MJs cosmetic surgeon, breached patient doctor confidentiality by talking about a procedure he did on Michaels nose . He even pushed to be called as a witness in the AEG trial, while flipflopping his opinion about the case, making all kind of cryptic remarks to look as if he had inside information. This is from his website yesterday.

            MJs cosmetic surgeon Dr.Patrick Treacy w Dr.Lorraine Lambelt@ #DakshinCultureCurry #SouthIndian #Restobar #Restaurant http://ow.ly/i/6FLPV

            I doubt he ever did surgery on Michael, from his own words is was more like cosmetic procedures, fillers etc.so why call yourself MJ cosmetic surgeon.
            I doubt he was that close to Michael as he clained to be. Fans gave him a status as one of Michaels best friends without really knowing what kind of relationship Michael had with him. Only because he spoke positive about MJ ,as the did Wade Robson.
            I have little respect for Klein, but if it was him parading Michaels name or pictures the way Treacy does he would have been vilified.

          3. He was being pretty well villified yesterday if the tweets were any indication!

            I guess fans just like to believe that out of all the snakes and vultures in Michael’s life that he had at least a few good, trustworthy friends. It’s always disappointing when it seems yet another one has turned coat. I do hope it was a misunderstanding but I kind of agree with you that even if he didn’t mean for the pics to appear on Twitter, the fact that he used them at all still seems a little unsettling.

            That being said, Treacy HAS given a lot of his time and effort to projects like Everland and he has tried to do some good in clearing up a lot of the public misconceptions about Michael. I’m not saying that gives him a pass, but it makes me a little more willing to give him benefit of the doubt than some others. I just hope this proves to be a one-off thing and is not done again.

        2. What are you all talking about re: Patrick Treacy video with (questionable?) pictures of Michael? I tried to find it on-line with no success.

          Has Treacy turned on Michael? What is the problem with the presentation? Really–I’m curious. Or is it better that I not be?

      2. I don’t believe that Charles Thomson is living a double life. I think he became more respectful of Michael after his death. Michael wasn’t even his main musical interest – he considers himself an expert on James Brown and recently wrote a piece criticizing the current bio movie for fabricating events.

        Roger Friedman defended Michael on an internet radio show (can’t remember which one), saying that all he wanted to do with kids is play video games. As for Radar Online, their legal editor wrote that she didn’t believe that Michael ever molested anyone. But when it comes to the bottom line, they fall in line.

        1. RF has enough common sense to know that the allegations were bs.Telling the truth imo is not defending but should be the standard for journalists . Anything else he wrote about Michael was mockery and borderline slander. ‘Defending’ Michael now does not make up for the wrongs and pain he caused him when he was alive.

          As far as journalistic standards and ethics you cannot compare CT to RF, they are worlds apart.

          1. And Charles actually outted RF regarding the incident that got him fired from Fox, when he fabricated a story about Madonna being booed at a concert (which he did not even attend). For some reason, he has this thing with Mariah Carey and will do most anything to promote her at the expense of other artists. The staged Madonna story was to promote Mariah Carey’s tour (tearing down one artist to promote another). He attempted the same tactic this year when Mariah’s album was released a week or so after Xscape. He was going on and on about what a “flop” Xscape was, while singing the praises of Mariah’s album and how it was going to give Xscape such “competition.” As it turned out, that album sank as quickly as it debuted, while Xscape went on to dominate much of the summer and still has a very respectable chart showing. He is such an ass sometimes, I swear!

  6. Wow! Maybe-just maybe-love really is more powerful than hate after all, huh!

    Thanks for the information Raven, that is alot of research for a ‘non investigative’ blogger. You hit the nail with the comparison of their ‘passion’ for Michael vs ignoring Sandusky and Savilles real victims . Stealing identities and hiding behind proxied sites the way paedophile networks do, is not a recommendation for a site that claims to tell the facts.
    I wasnt aware that this was still going on.I stopped reading these blogs a long time ago. such a waste of time when I cant even keep up with the ‘real’ MJ news.
    Glad you also put their significance into perspective including the ‘support Wade’ sites.I dont see them as a threat really since their agenda is so transparant. We cant stop them anyway, only tell the other side of the story and report them in case of harassment. As you say they have no real power or influence,at worst they are annoying but our attention is their life line.

    More dangerous are the ones disguised as journalists, who write for mainstream and gossipmedia like SB and DH, or about crime like DD and have exposure on national TV. Worse even are the ones in the judicial system who make no secret of their shameless alliance with false accusers and their lawers. Too bad Michael didnt have the fighting spirit anymore to sue the Arvizo;s. Its an incestuous relationship and they do have the power to influence the public and the system. Unfortunately there are no journalists in Michaels corner with the same passion, interest and exposure as DD and SB to counter their stories. That s why I am happy that Tmez still speaks out for Michael every opportunity he has.
    I hope that while we are looking at these small fish we do not miss the big picture of these allegations. Every opportunity Tmez is hinting that Michael believed that sony was behind much of his legal problems.
    That is the kind of conspiracy many dont want to believe, some will say Michael was paranoid. But reality is often stranger than fiction. There are so many questions about Wade Robsons connections and why he of all people should start this bs. 3 years ago noone would have believed this could happpen, Wade was praised to heaven as Michaels most loyal friend. so to me anything is possible.
    As for accusers, I hope there is no Australian connection there(Bret.)It has to stop with Wade.

    1. I agree, but keep in mind that just as “medialoid” journalism has been born out of the merging of mainstream media with tabloid media, there is an increasing blurring of the lines between a lot of these journalists and some of these trolls like Mike Par. The fact that several of them are now working hand in hand adds a whole other level of depravity that hasn’t always been the case.

  7. I’m not finished with this important, thought provoking post yet but something has occurred to me.

    The fact that the overwhelming majority of haters are men – white men. I’ve often wondered if MJ aroused feelings in them that they didn’t understand (being narrow minded, less evolved people); not homosexual feelings, but seeing a (black) man as beautiful, responding to that man with feelings of love that are neither romantic nor sexual. Knowing that man loved them (as he loved all humanity). These feelings could frighten the small minded, macho man who would predictably hate the source of the feelings – Michael Jackson.

    Just a thought…

    Back to reading.

    1. I do believe that most of what I call the “professional haters”-that is, those who invest huge hours into creating websites and trolling the internet-are middle aged white males, and yes it IS an interesting phenomenon.

  8. Just to mention in case I missed it here, in the NYC picture with the Zonens , The Browns , D Dimond and husband is Steve Robel , lead detective and his wife Nancy.
    Nancy , tiy may recall , was used by the police to drive the Arvizos around
    Stacey brown contacted me when I said they all vacationed together in NYC., and asked me where I saw the picture , but I never answered him
    Of course I saw it on Louise Palanker page .
    Louise also had the oictures of the Arvizo brothers at her wedding on her page , so I am sure she wants fans to see they support each other .
    The Wedding announcement of Gavin Arvizo was also found by fans .
    I think they have decided to use this stuff to their advantage to self promot3e, because lets face it , if they had any integrity , they never would have done all this ..It is obvious MJ was being railroaded.
    They are like cock roaches , trying to remain relevant.

    1. Thanks for the info. Yes, I believe I recall reading that this pic was originally on Louise Palanker’s page. They certainly aren’t putting up any pretense that they don’t associate with each other, in a manner that goes well beyond professional associations.

    1. Thanks for the article. Sneddon must still hurt from the humiliation and he could very well behind the scenes giving WR advice.

      This gave me chills
      ‘You may recall family members( the Arvizo’s) complaining that the Blazer( that Michael gave them)eventually needed repairs. They handed it back to Jackson and he kept it. But here’s something you don’t know about the Blazer: It’s the exact same vehicle Jackson was driving in 1992 when he met the Chandler family, whose son was his accuser in the 1993 civil suitThe truck broke down on the San Diego Freeway near Rent-A-Wreck, the rental car agency owned by June Chandler’s second husband, David Schwartz.’

      Talking about shape shifting (quote Simba)
      “Sneddon was so happy that he actually embraced celebrity crime reporter Aphrodite Jones. She told me he was in a jubilant mood, and the most outgoing of all the people on hand.”

      It is indeed like a Deja Vu ,minus Michael Jackson.

      1. @sina

        yeah tom Meseaeru mentioned in an interview that he spoke to someone who had access to Sneddon in recent years and the person told him that Sneddon will never get over losing the Michael jackson case and that there is a profound sadness about him.

        1. The profound sadness should be for some of the real child molestors that he let get away in his obsessive pursuit of Michael Jackson.

    2. Interesting that Aphrodite Jones was invited to that gathering. But then, she never made it any secret that she thought Michael was guilty until AFTER the verdict came in.

      Weird about the Chevy Blazer, too. I never knew that was the same vehicle that brought the Chandlers into his life. I learned something today!

  9. Also, Michael Jackson is still big business, like a corporation.Each person who has made accusations , has been associated with Diane Dimond , because she prints and reports anything negative, even if she knows it is lies
    I do think that is why Wade Robson/ lawyer is using Dimond, as a mouth piece, because it had worked in the past ..When a CD, a tour , drops, now the Vegas shows, the hologram..SUDDENLY some garbage pops up , to remind the estate that they are attempting to ruing their brand if they arent paid off.It is a win for the lawyer , they get lots of PR, and a possible cut , like Larry Feldman , and their status goes up , for getting a huge settlement..
    The accusers get a shot a generational wealth, enabled, and protected by the tabloids.
    Only thing missing this time is an ambitious prosecutor looking for higher office, book deals and accolades for being a hero, protecting children.
    Instead we have a disgruntled prosecutor , Ron Zonen , who will only speak to Dimond and Radaronline .
    As I said to D Dimond before she blocked me, there were lots of people damaging children in the courtroom but MJ wasnt one of them.
    So while the person behind the support site , for Wade, calls Radaronline with info, while Wade “heals” in Hawaii, I dont believe it is one person behind that site either .

    I think it is tabloid hacks , sharing info and hits , promoting their names like Dimond and Brown do , cross promoting .all with the blessing of Wade and company ..
    Interesting to me, that Wade good friend Cris Judd , has liked that page , when it is obvious , it isnt a true group of people ..
    I have also seen Cris saying how much he misses Wade on his page, so he isnt just someone monitoring that page , he actively “likes” things on Wade and Chantals page.
    And why , now , is Brown putting out old disproven garbage about what mess MJ house was ??
    And remarkably TMZ even had it up..
    They are trying to fan interest or doing each other favors ?.
    I am concerned that Mr Mesereau , is concerned that the estate might figure , it is more cost effective to pay these people to go away , because I think Weitzman always has seems very serious and tepid to me, and these are visceral accusations , that they leave floating out there , I suppose , in order to not have it played out in tabloids , which is the only place these people have a chance.
    But Mesereau is getting very vocal about it
    If Robson or Safechuck had to actually answer questions, surely it would crash and burn, IF it got that far, but it still a distasteful subject the estate doesnt want to be reminded about , while they try and pull in more money , with big events ..

    Supposedly these people care so much about proving MJ a criminal, I am surprised they dont go to Chandler who is a person who could testify on their behalf.
    Obviously he isnt interested .
    I think they all know he was full of it , and that is why they concentrate on Brett, hoping they can get him on board offering a possibility of a big payout.
    Mr Chandler already got paid , he has no need, to do anything , because it was always just about getting money.So they cant count on Francia or Chandler coming in to face cross, so these people can get paid.
    It isnt a criminal investigation.
    As J Chandler famously said ” I did my part”.He got paid , he is done .

    1. “And why , now , is Brown putting out old disproven garbage about what mess MJ house was ??
      And remarkably TMZ even had it up..”

      Why, indeed. Howard Weitzman and Harvey Levin are close friends, going back many years. One phone call and TMZ would have killed that story. Weitzman doesn’t give a damn about Michael Jackson. As for settling, that might have been on the table before Wade and Jimmy spewed their garbage, even though it would have been wrong. But why on earth would you reward them after they have told their lies to the media? What more can they say – that he ate puppies and kittens for breakfast? I refuse to believe that anybody who got through law school and managed to pass the bar can be that stupid. Unless it’s a conspiracy, which it very well may be.

    2. The most likely explanation for the TMZ story about the mess of the house is a case of “news hijacking.” which we were discussing in the comments to my previous post on this topic. The interest in the Robson/Safechuck stories is feeding another round of interest in salacious stories about Michael, and the unscrupulous will strike while that iron is hot. Obviously, even if those stories were true, being a slob is not criminal; however, these kinds of stories create an obvious accumulative effect when they are piled one on top of the other. And that is the whole idea. Thus, I think at least part of it is an intentional strategy; the rest simply comes about as an after effect, but in the end, it all serves to create damage.

  10. The article I posted shows just how pathetic and arrogant those prosecutors were. The jury hadn’t even reached a verdict and they were already out celebrating with their families drinking expensive champagne and so on. Imagine how stupid they must have felt when the jury rejected their ridiculous case. Did they honestly think they had a chance of winning? Did they really think that with all the lies the Arvizos told under oath that those 12 intelligent jurors were going to believe them and not follow the jury instructions? They were just as delusional as they claim we fans are. They lost because they rushed to judgement. No self-respecting person would have ever believed those outrageous claims of being kidnapped and escaping Neverland. When you are blinded by zeal, you see things that are not there, but when you are objective, you see things that are actually there and as a result, you are able to think logically and are able to present a good and believable case for a jury.

  11. Raven, I want to thank you very much that you addressed the current situation in detail and in an excellent way. I posted the links to your posts also on VMJ. We were kept from writing about it on VMJ due to personal issues, so we are glad that someone did, especially as we can confirm the content and have made exactly the experiences described by you. I hope you don’t become now a new target of those haters, but it is wonderful to see that despite several disagreements within the fanbase, the MJ community is united in this point and will be ready to defend you.

    We cannot expect this hate and slander to stop in the near future:
    “In the coming months, we are no doubt going to see this new “family” joining ranks to spread lies and false or misleading information.”
    This is exactly true, so we have to stay on top of things without the necessity to share their links and get involved in arguments with them. Just to be informed and inform others about the facts.

  12. I’m reading Pete Townshend’s autobiography “Who I Am”. You may already know this – he was the victim of sexual abuse as a child, both by a family member and at a summer camp. He explains how those events fueled the anger that emerged in his music.

    He said this about Michael’s acquittal:
    “I was pleased Michael was cleared,” the sixty-year-old guitarist posted on his Web site Wednesday. “His feathers may be badly burned, and he may be damaged in other ways too, but he is something of an angel.”

    Townshend called Jackson’s trial — which concluded last week in the pop star being acquitted of the ten charges he faced –“absurd.” He also relayed a story about how Jackson once funded a circus for a group of special-needs children, including a daughter of one of Townshend’s friends. “This little girl believed she was Michael’s future wife,” Townshend wrote, “and he so kindly allowed her to sit next to him, as his future bride.”

    From the June 24, 2005 issue of Rolling Stone
    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/pete-townshend-lauds-michael-jackson-20050624

    I’ve encountered several haters who take that irrelevant gas-bag Gene Simmons’ total BS as gospel. Here we have the opinion of a man no one would call naïve, an actual victim, and he knew MJ to some degree – there are photos of them together on line.

    1. I’ve seen those quotes from Pete Townsend. It was very nice that he was one of the few fellow celebs/musicians willing to stand up for Michael in 2005.

  13. I did not remember Tom Mesereau saying that about Weitzman’s firm pulling out in 2005. TO my understanding Steve Cochran (no relationship to Johnny) was the one from that firm that pulled out and there was more than one reason. He was the one that told on Janet Arvizo to CPS for welfare fraud. There was also the conflict with the Media Outlets because Cochran’s firm represented NBC and they were the ones that were petitioning the court for rights to broadcast and other things. Then when he left it was right around the time that the prosecution was providing discovery in the 1993 case and the Neverland Five trial.He covered both for Michael and he was actually accused by Abdool et al of threats and bribery.

    1. I cannot find the podcast now, it was on June 23, 2014: http://vallieegirl67.com/2014/06/09/king-jordan-radio-michael-jackson-special-tribute-show-to-air-june-23-2014/

      But I made a transcript of that part back then and this is what Mez said:

      50:57

      “And I might add another thing. The Katten Muchin firm was a part of my defence team. When we were heading towards trial in 2005 and they’ve quit the team, you know, not long before the trial. You have to ask them what their reasons were, but I don’t think they felt we were gonna win, but, you know, you’d have to ask them what their reasons are. I don’t know particularly. All I’m telling you is that Henry Gradstein is a smart lawyer and this is a very creative lawsuit he put together trying to sue Michael Jackson years after he’s dead. I think he’s looking across the courtroom and at Weitzman and Branca and the lawyers representing the Estate and I think he’s salivating and he doesn’t think they have the courage to try a case like this after the settlements they entered into in the past. So that really bothers me.”

      1. I suspect that Gradstein is looking for a settlement, where Wade miraculously discovers that his accusations were planted by his therapist, and he is willing to withdraw his suit for a tasty confidential sum. Weitzman and company are too lazy, and too spineless, to litigate, so they may be quite willing to pay Wade off for, say $20,000,000 of the Jackson children’s money to go away.

        Raven, you said we could go in on Wade after you presented your Australian connection theory. Are we there yet?

        1. I still have a post I would like to do on debunking the “evidence” of these people in general; however, whatever you wish to say about Wade, feel free to blast away. I will be getting more into him and Jimmy specifically in subsequent posts.

      2. The estate has said they have no intention of settling. But it’s interesting that Mez keeps bringing this up as a point of concern.

  14. I would like to add to some of what is said here. Both sites, MJFacts and Desiree Speaks have a link to a document by Ken Lanning. It was the same one that Paul Zellis referenced when he wrote the Statement of Probable Cause for the 2003 search of Neverland. Both sites had it up as a reference almost from the beginning to prove their point.
    Recent comments that Mike Par has made indicate that they use it when they show people he fits that profile. The trouble is they are twisting the information in it to fit the allegations. More Cherry Picking with a twist. Because the allegations don’t indicate that Michael was a pedophile but they don’t know that. I have told them what is wrong with what they say but I am ignored.
    Then the important thing to remember is that it was written for law enforcement to help them develop good interrogation skills for perpetrators and victims.It also includes how a victim behaves which is where they have finally made their mistake obvious. Wade Robson and James Safechuck’s allegation follows almost to a tee their interpretation of a victim in that document and the important part is that it is THEIR interpretation not the information.
    They got some docs from someone a long time ago and all of the evidence that they use has been proven false not it one court but two or three in some cases. That is what Wade and James sound like just like the old allegations with a couple of things added but for reasons that they think are right not what is right.
    I have screenshots of a person on Helena’s You Tube Channel in Feb of 13 and on Topix form November of 12. Both of them say that there are new accusers coming forward from the UK. At the time I dismissed them as them being them but now because we can make a direct link to the Topix trolls and Par, MJ Facts and DSSL it looks to me like they gave Wade and James help in contriving their stories months if not a year in advance of them coming forward.

    1. It’s very clear to me (actually it’s a fact when you look at his website: http://www.heartsinourhands.org/booksoncsa/ ) that Wade’s reads material to model his allegations after. No wonder when he talks about these allegations he is annoyingly textbook in language and style. Uses the typical language of those self help books.

      And while we are at it. I actually bought the last book he recommends – Conversations with a Pedophile. He writes about that book: “I found it to be incredibly enlightening in regards to my personal journey with abuse and profoundly insightful in relation to the state of mind of my abuser.”

      So I was curious what kind of behaviour he claims to have given him an insight into MJ’s mind. I used to buy a summary of it, it’s a bit long but let me post it here because it just highlights once again how full of shit Wade is and he’s just trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at Michael:

      So the book is basically a conversation between “Alan” (the pedophile) and Amy, the author. Each chapter is told from the POV of either of them. Amy is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse herself, but that’s not why she met Alan. She’s a music therapist and she met him in that function. They were well into their discussions that lasted for several months and years, when she disclosed to him that she’s a survivor. (She was abused by her father and grandfather when she was a child.)

      I’m not sure how Wade is trying to relate this book to Michael, because the pedophile portrayed in it is nothing like him. In fact, this book just shows while Michael does not fit that profile at all. The victim (Amy) too is very different from Wade. When she was a child she kept it a secret because she thought “there was no one to rescue me”.

      “And I was convinced that it was a secret that could never be told, because I felt, at nine years old, that there was no one to rescue me.”

      She tried to tell her mother in childish ways, such as making her read a certain book to her at bedtime and telling her that the protagonist in it was “just like me” – and the protagonist was a sexually abused girl – but her mother did not or did not want to realize the clues.

      Quotes from the book:

      “Sometimes the most therapeutic discovery of all is the sheer knowledge that you’re not alone, that what happened to you has happened to another.”

      “For the victim, feeling different means feeling painfully cut off from others on a profound level. A kind of permanent loneliness keeps the victim from connecting with others and enjoying life fully. Before his child victims evolve emotionally , long before they assume full control of their own minds and bodies, the abuser intervenes and thwarts the process. These children are unaware that many other children who are also victims have experiences like theirs and share the feelings of differentness. They feel isolated.”

      “Sexually abused children know, of course, that other children eat, sleep, and go to school as they do, but that’s where the similarity often ends.”

      “Looking back, it seems to me that I swung between crying out for help and almost giving up on life altogether. I felt so different from others, so dirty and bad, that it seemed impossible even to try to relate my experiences to anyone. I had no words for these experiences anyway.”

      “I came to understand the feelings of difFerent-ness that are universal among victims of childhood sexual abuse through memories from my own childhood as well as through subsequent music therapy work with patients.”

      “Sexually abused children find it almost impossible to communicate to others about their experiences. They feel that they are to blame for what has happened to them and that they will be punished. Feelings of self-disgust run so strong that the child is certain that any possible listener will share these same feelings of repulsion for him or her. This fear locks away the possibility of communicating feelings to disclose crucial information to those who could help. For these and many other reasons, reaching out simply does not happen, and the child is self-defeated.”

      Obviously this does not apply to Wade, who after 1993 could not think no one would believe or rescue him or that he was alone, let alone after 2005. Yet, he still tries to apply these examples to himself on his website, when he makes claims that he felt alone and isolated. Not even realizing how just because he read it in a book that most victims feel so it does not mean it can be well applied to his alleged case. In fact, it cannot.

      As for Alan:

      He abused more than one thousand young boys. When he was convicted there were dozens of his victims in the courtroom.

      Quote:

      “Research shows the average pedophile abuses approximately 250 children (United Youth Security, 1999).”

      It’s obvious from what he tells that pedophilia is a compulsive, obsessive and progressive illness, that one can never get under control voluntarely. Actually in the life of the pedophile it’s all-consuming. Everything he does is done eventually to prey on victims.

      “We learn from Alan that pedophilia is an orientation forged in childhood. He began sexually abusing younger children when he himself was a young child.”

      “He had told me that only boys between the ages of six and thirteen were appealing to him, that after puberty they no longer held the attraction for him.”

      I guess this is why Wade and James claim MJ stopped molesting them when they reached puberty.

      Alan says that he always felt different and could not fit in with other people. This turned into always feeling a victim of his circumstances. He says:

      “This self-created and self-serving sense of victimization allowed me to do anything that I desired without the slightest twinge of guilt, shame, responsibility, or remorse.”

      MJ was the embodiement of compassion and empathy. Pedophiles are just the opposite. They do not really feel sorry for their victims. I think this is why, if there is a trial, besides evidence it will be important to call character witnesses about MJ and to show his real personality, not the tabloid caricature that Stacy Brown and his ilk are still working on to build.

      As often pointed out, pedohilia is about control and power, which Alan keeps confirming throughout his story:

      “Although I felt vulnerable and incapable in the world surrounding me, I could always offset those feelings by acting out. I could, at any time, make myself feel stronger and more in control of life by forcing some even more vulnerable child into submitting to my will. This single aspect of life seemed to be the only domain that was within my control and the only activity that provided me with any sense of pleasure, power, and, in a twisted fashion , acceptance. Sexual fantasy and sexual abuse became my total panacea. I sexualized everything in life and took out all of my pent-up feelings and frustrations in sexual and sexually aggressive ways against more vulnerable victims.”

      Book says pedophiles are often oversexualized as children and then continue to be as adults. To them “…all of life becomes one giant sexual experience”.

      “I didn’t see sex as a part of life but rather as the sole purpose of my existence. And, as my focus centered more and more around my sexual difference, the mental gap I felt between myself and all other people grew wider and wider.”

      “By judging objects in this fashion, I was filtering out any parts of life that I didn’t see as serving a sexual purpose. I was actively working to support my view of life as a totally sexual experience. Unfortunately, inanimate objects were not the only “ things” that I began to judge in this manner.”

      Reading the book it seemed to me this aspect of having power over someone and being able to manipulate him is a lot more important to a pedophile than the actual sex act. In fact, Alan did say that to him the most satisfying and “electrifying” moment was not that of the sex act but the moment when he saw his victim give up resistance and surrender. Once they became overly submissive he lost interest in them and moved on to the next victim, because it wasn’t as exciting to him any more as when he saw a victim struggle with feelings and then the moment of giving up and surrendering. There’s definitely an emotionally sadistic element here IMO.

      It seems the road to the actual molestation, the planning, the plotting, the manipulation was just as important to him – also in terms of excitement – as the actual act of molestation.

      “By fourteen, I had figured out that manipulation, planning, and patience were much more effective than rushing ahead and taking unnecessary chances.”

      Yet acc. to Wade’s story MJ molested him the first night. There was no grooming, no build-up, nothing. And that while Chantal was sleeping upstairs.

      “In these early years, I was already discovering that while I loved the ultimate sexual act, the real thrill lay in the planning, a thrill that equaled that of the final sexual release. Another thing I was discovering was that for me to deviate from my established plan significantly detracted from my sense of excitement and enjoyment.”

      So also for his “excitement” Alan needed to follow an established plan. That was part of the game, that excited him.

      However with MJ, if we put all these allegations against him side by side, there is just no pattern in them (even if the accusers try to throw in some superficial elements to resemble past allegations – re. alcohol, porn etc.). But MJ seems to be the most patternless “molester” based on these allegations. He builds up abuse in a slow gradual process with Jordan and does not touch Gavin for three years but he starts molesting Wade right on the first or second night without any type of grooming process. Wade and James claim MJ started to lose interest in them at about 12-14 when they reached puberty, while Jordan and Gavin claimed that was the age he started to molest them. Etc.

      Amy again about her own abuse:

      “During this time, I was exhibiting several physical symptoms. I had mysteriously contracted severe psoriasis. When I first asked my mother to examine my head, she was completely stunned that huge patches of it covered my entire scalp. There was even more alarm when a physician discovered that my genital area was also affected. Today such a discovery would warrant the attention of agencies for detecting child abuse, and the physician would be mandated to report such a case. However, this 1960s dermatologist’s interrogation was limited to a querying raised eyebrow, directed at my mother.”

      There ARE physyical symptoms! There is no way there aren’t, especially with the things Wade claims. Any doctor who would claim now that he noticed something but did not report it (esp. with all the claims around MJ and knowing about Wade’s connection to him) would be in BIG trouble and should be among those who Wade sues, rather than MJ’s companies!

      Will his mother now claim she noticed some physical signs? Then again, why didn’t she report them? Or at least make the sleepovers stop? And why didn’t she mention these then in 2005? Was she too brainwashed? And how is she getting a pass for it while MJ’s companies are being sued for “turning a blind eye”?

      “I was also having difficulty following instruction in class, was found masturbating in school on a number of occasions , and feigned mysterious illnesses on a regular basis. It was no surprise that I was unable to continue on to the next grade in school. Although my schoolwork was satisfactory, it was decided by the school and my family that I needed to repeat the year in order to be more emotionally secure. I changed to another neighborhood school in order to repeat without embarrassment, which constituted another disruption in this already traumatic time of my life.”

      Alan:

      “For me, secrecy was the glue that held my fantasies together. Secrecy was the element that added a feeling of excitement, heightening the overall thrill I got from offending. It represented a twisted sense of personal power and personal worth, and ultimately it was my critical weapon both to entice and ensnare my young victims.”

      “My methods were not quick but designed to build, very slowly , a child’s acceptance of the need for secrets. At the same time, secrecy gave me the opportunity to make a child believe that I was the only person in the world who really cared for him and looked out for him.”

      “As I mentioned, I usually only attempted to molest a child after getting to know the potential victim and his family.”

      Never immediately right on the first occasion, like Wade claims!

      “Once I gained access to that circle, I would attempt to gain as complete an understanding of the boy as I could, see how he related to the adults and other family members, and if it appeared that there was a realistic possibility of success, I would then begin to groom my target. If I had determined that this child did not have the type of personality that led him always to discuss things with his parents, I knew that reluctance to communicate on his part could be developed into the keeping of secrets.”

      “Although I tailored my approach to suit the individual victim, the overall process seldom varied.”

      It’s called a pattern, but in MJ’s case there is no pattern at all in these stories. One alleged victim claims a slow gradual build-up to the abuse, the other claims MJ molested him immediately.

      “For the next few weeks or months, I would spend every available opportunity subtly drawing the child closer and closer.”

      “Throughout this entire period, which might well take up to a year, I continued to draw him further and further away from trusting his parents and worked toward his ultimately seeing them as a necessity but one to be outwitted and controlled.”

      Wade’s story is that the first night they spent on NL MJ abused him and continued to abuse him on each and every occasion they stayed alone in a room until he was 13 or 14 year old. So with no grooming, no build-up, no cautious studying of the family and the alleged victim etc., how could MJ be sure that Wade would never speak out until he’s 30 and decides to file a civil lawsuit years after MJ’s death?

      This would be an extremely reckless abuser and if so he should have been caught much earlier and there should be actual, real evidence against him. Haters always explain the lack of real evidence by claiming he was extremely cunning and manipulative. So how was he both reckless and extremely cunning? You can’t have it both ways.

      “Keeping all of these seemingly minor secrets had built up a feeling of equal responsibility and equal guilt in this totally innocent child, something I had worked to achieve, and it was this inability to inform on me without having to explain his own willing participation that finally kept him captive to my sick desires.”

      In the book Alan explains it in lenght how it was a slow, gradual process until he built up this atmosphere with the victim that the victim felt the need to keep their secrets. Again, it requires grooming and build-up!

      “Prior to my taking the first physical action against a victim, I would have spent a great deal of time getting to know both the child and his family. Before I reached the point of physically committing myself to this crime, I wanted to make sure that it was as close to foolproof as I could make it and that the victim was groomed as well as possible to keep our secret.”

      !!!!

      Then he talks about control and power:

      “Unfortunately, for many of us, the need to reprove our “power” becomes more and more constant . And frequently the level of proof we need to validate our sense of control continues to escalate.”

      Which is what makes pedophilia a progressive illness! To be blunt: someone who’s already done anal sex with children won’t be satisfied with just masturbation and oral sex with all the subsequent victims. But this is what Wade basically claims now with adding the anal sex element: MJ did it with him (and maybe with James before him – we will see what his allegations are), but then never again with either of his later victims. This notion again goes against how pedophilia works in real life. Not only the acts themselves escalate and become more and more brutal and abusive, but also the number of victims that Alan had at once became more and more.

      In the allegations against MJ we should believe it was the opposite on each front: also in the number of victims. 4 of his 5 alleged victims came from the early 90s and only Gavin from a later time. So we should believe that MJ molested kids in the late 80s and early 90s then stopped. Then molested Gavin in 2003. That’s not how it works.

      Pedophilia is progressive.

      “What I didn’t see at that early age was that each time I felt the thrill that came when a victim gave in to my demands , the thrill quickly left me wanting to have it again. At first I tried to re-create the feeling by having a victim do what he had done before, but it was never the same—pleasurable but not exciting . Every time I proved that I was able to make someone do what I wanted, I found myself having to prove it again, and again, and again. I also learned that making a new victim do the same act was electric. Now I had two tools for feeling the excitement— finding new victims and making the current victim do something new.”

      “I need to point out that not every boy went along with all of the steps in my cycle. I encountered a lot of victims who permitted me to continue to a certain point and then flatly rejected all attempts beyond that level. This loss of control drove me crazy. I would try every manipulation, bribe, and promise I could fantasize about with those boys, but some of them still would not surrender. When I reached that point, I was frustrated and dropped him for another, more willing victim.”

      It’s all about control for pedophiles! That is why stories like Jordan’s in Gardner’s interview sound so off. When he claims he did not like MJ putting his tongue in his ear and grabbing his butt and he told him to stop that and he “never did that again”. Not to mention the whole ridiculousness of Jordan telling him to stop butt-grabbing, but not telling him to stop masturbation and oral sex, considering it was apparently pretty easy to tell MJ to stop certain things and he did.

      “I desperately wanted to once again be in a position where I was surrounded by young boys, but I did not want to take that step until I had the entire congregation convinced that I was doing this with extreme reluctance and only because I was practically drafted by the pastor and elders. The last thing in the world that I wanted anyone to wonder was why this single young man wanted to devote so much time to being around little boys. As I had expected, the scoutmaster discussed the matter with several of the church elders and our pastor, and I was besieged with requests to get involved.”

      “The image I needed was now in place. Should anyone raise the question as to why this new young man spent so much time with these kids, the entire neighborhood and congregation would explain just how hard they had to work to talk me into it.”

      He put on a facade acting like he was not particularly interested in, and even reluctant of being around and working with children to not to raise suspicion. Now, how does it compare to MJ openly walking around with his alleged victims in front of the media and openly telling about sharing bed with them? I’m sorry, but I don’t think a real pedophile would ever do that, especially a clever, manipulative and cunning one like MJ supposedly was.

      “By twenty-four, I had two different means of accessing potential victims: through friendship with their parents or through the scout troop. I employed a method and pattern of abuse I’d been creating and refining for seventeen years, and I had no fear that my victims would ever inform on me. The tools at my disposal as an adult were a great deal more powerful than those I had in earlier years, and as a result, I was molesting on a scale that even I would not have thought possible five years earlier. Now I had a constant pool of young victims in various degrees of molestation, a pool that had to contain somewhere in the neighborhood of forty to fifty youngsters. I distinctly remember attending a church Christmas pageant at this time, and of the eleven boys on the stage, nine of them were current victims.”

      Pedophilia is compulsive, obsessive and progressive.

      “Although the eleven- or twelve-year-old was totally disgusted by what he was being forced to endure, he would almost always rather submit than ever risk the mortal shame of anyone’s finding out. As these victims approached puberty, however, the growing sense of adolescent independence was making further submission more and more intolerable. By thirteen , the average victim of my abuse was searching desperately for some way to end it but to do so without having to make any of it known to anyone. In earlier years, when it took me significantly longer to totally escalate a victim, this adolescent sense of independence occurred at just about the same time that I was losing interest in the boy.”

      In both Wade and James story it’s MJ who ends the abuse at 13, not them because of some “growing sense of adolescent independence”. (And in Jordan and Gavin’s stories supposedly he starts to molest them at this age, when they start to have this “growing sense of adolescent independence”…) In fact, James claims MJ started to “groom him for separation” at 12. Why do you even need to groom a kid for that? A kid would be very happy if the abuse just ended. These victims are not some eager participants who enjoy it.

      Basically the sense of control and power for this guy comes from having the ability to make his victims do whatever he wants them to do, despite of their disgust or fears. Once a boy becomes submissive and does not display the initial sense of fear, reluctance, disgust etc., the offender loses interest. So like he said earlier he either needed to move on to new victims or needed to make his current victims do new things that they dreaded. One of these were being photographed while doing sexual things, so that’s when he started to take pornographic photos and videos of them:

      “With each successive victim, regardless of the number and variety of photos I ended up taking, I took one eight-shot series in which I posed each boy naked in perfectly identical poses in the same setting. When I had completed this series with the second victim, I laid both the boy’s shots out next to each other and was captivated by a sense of power in being able to demand identical performances from each of them. In time, the number of victims in those photos as well as my sense of control grew tremendously.”

      “Before long, there were twenty-two medium-sized brown envelopes locked in a wooden chest in my bedroom. Each envelope contained an entire photographic record of a different victim. All of my photographed victims had now reached the point where they were no longer resisting being filmed. The most exciting part at this point was laying out one identically posed shot for each of the boys and experiencing a surge of power knowing that I had forced all of them to do exactly the same thing in exactly the same place despite their fear of being recorded.”

      “I began to do things that were unnecessary in order to obtain my goal, i.e. making endless lists, notes, and forms, in order to both heighten the excitement and prolong the fantasy.”

      This just made me think of the lack of any such material ever found in Michael’s possession. He was a graphomaniac, he always wrote notes about everything and pedophiles are obesssed people. So how came there is no writing, note or anything like that pertaining to these alleged acts or this kind of state of mind?

      “I became more and more obsessed with the fantasy until I reached the point, normally in the week prior to acting out, where virtually everything else in my life meant nothing to me, and I concentrated on nothing else.”

      “I was completely obsessed with the ritualistic nature of the actual abuse. Crucial to me was the slow and deliberate pace, the continual escalation of each phase, and especially the adamant demand that each victim play out his role precisely as I intended it.”

      “I saw these abuses as rituals because by the time that I actually acted them out, I had pictured them so vividly and so frequently in my imagination that their ultimate enactment had a distinctly ritualistic feeling for me. I also refer to these occasions as rituals because their implementation was intentionally prolonged by my forcing my victim( s) to submit to a series of escalating steps, all of which were totally unnecessary to obtaining my sexual goal.”

      So the slow build-up isn’t just for caution, but also because it’s part of the excitement.

      “My acting out and my obsession were to continue for another twenty years. During that entire period, the frequency of my abusing and the extremes to which I went to carry out my abuses continually escalated.”

      Again: progressive. they will not start with anal sex and then go to just masturbation.

      “Alan was eventually caught after a mother found a Polaroid of her son in a sexual position while she was cleaning his room . She contacted the police, Alan was apprehended, and charges were pressed. An investigation ensued, and many other victims came forward. Alan pleaded guilty on all charges. His charges numbered so high that he had the dubious distinction of being the largest-scale sexual offender in the area.”

      So once the guy was exposed, dozens of other alleged victims came forward. Not 20 years later, filing a civil suit after the guy’s death…

      —–

      How Wade can say with a straight face that this book gave him an insight into MJ’s mind, I have no idea. Just shows he’s full of it.

      1. That book sounds like a fascinating, if disturbing, read. It’s amazing how much books like this can actually serve to exonerate Michael, especially as many start to realize that behaviors of his they think are so typical of pedophile behavior actually aren’t. But the problem with someone like Wade is that he can read a book like this and then simply make his story fit the details, and no one is going to really be in a position to know since they weren’t there.

        Pedophiles are definitely notorious compilers and record-keepers of their conquests. For me, this remains the single strongest and most convincing argument for Michael’s innocence. There is absolutely nothing that is hardcore evidence-no photographs, no love letters to any boy, no taped phone conversations, no emails or texts; nothing. I know there are things that haters have tried desperately to construe into “evidence” but they are not actual evidence.

        My abuser got away with what he did for twenty years, but eventually went to prison because of a video tape where, although he did not appear on it, could clearly be heard instructing the child to raise her top.

        But I am also going to confess here something that I learned about myself as an abuse victim, and it makes me wonder if Wade wasn’t perhaps abused by someone (I just happen to not believe that that “someone” was Michael). As a victim, I also became well aware of “victimhood” and how to play that card. Over time, it became my official “excuse” for everything that was wrong in my life, even mistakes that I knew, deep down, were a result of my own conscious choices. It became easy to blame everything on what had happened to me. There can also be a sense of entitlement that comes with playing “the victim.” It can become a way to win sympathy; a way to manipulate. When I look back now on a lot of my behavior, I realize I was guilty of this, though it took many years of reaching maturity to finally understand it. I discovered that adults, for example, would treat me special; they would make allowances for me. I would also sometimes lie and blame my abuser for things I was clearly guilty of myself. Some therapists might say it was all a direct result of the abuse, but looking back on my own behaviors I know that wasn’t always the case (because I was in my own skin and I knew exactly what I was thinking at the time, and how I was rationalizing my decisions and choices). To give an example, I once lied outright when I was nine years old. My mother caught me masturbating. Out of embarrassment, I lied and told her my dad had taught me how to do it. There was NO truth to what I said. At the time, it just seemed easier to shift the blame to him so that I didn’t have to deal with the embarrassment of it and my mother’s nosy questions. However, the fact that he HAD been inappropriate with me gave me the license to tell that lie. In my mind, I felt perfectly justified; maybe a part of me WANTED to tell on him, and that was my outlet. If it got him in trouble; if I accused him of an extra act he did not, in fact, commit, I didn’t care. In my child’s mind, he had still done bad things and deserved the lie.

        The point, however, is that this became a pattern for much of my life. If I didn’t like something or someone; if I fell out with them, if I had to deal with a situation that was too stressful or painful, I would fall back on playing “the victim” to lash out or to get back at someone. I had been a victim, but I also was well aware of when I was using it to manipulate people and situations.

        This is also why I am very much aware that these kinds of cases-and certainly these kinds of accusations-are not cut and dry. I believe it is possible that there has been some form of psychological abuse in Wade’s case. But it is also obvious that he is using material like this to construct a kind of “textbook case.”

        1. “But I am also going to confess here something that I learned about myself as an abuse victim, and it makes me wonder if Wade wasn’t perhaps abused by someone (I just happen to not believe that that “someone” was Michael).”

          I don’t think he had to be molested by anyone to use these allegations as a self-defense mechanism to describe the kind of victim-playing, responsibility-shifting behaviour that you described in your post. I mean people with real abuse stories can use that as an excuse for everything (even when that is not the real reason for something they do), but I think also people with made-up abuse stories can use it as an excuse.

          Maybe he was abused in other ways. For example, if you think making a child work hard at an early childhood is child abuse then yes, Wade was abused – by his mother.

          I think the part about the Spielberg prophecy in his lawsuit gives us a glimpse into his real problem. This was also a very odd statement by his cousin: “What most people don’t understand is that the same indoctrination about the abuse Wade received was the same indoctrination to be successful and well known in the entertainment industry, “Be the best, or be nothing”.”

          That does not even make any sense, but it’s clear that to Wade (because I’m sure the cousin is parroting him here) the whole thing is strongly linked to some “indoctrination” he supposedly received from MJ to make it big in the entertainment industry.

          I think these are little clues to what he’s real problem is. He’s been under extreme pressure to succeed – and succeed big since an early childhood. This might have resulted in a kind burn-out and a pressure that made him have two nervous breakdowns by the age of 30 and a desire to move away from the entertainment industry. But that’s all he knew all his life so he needs money to do that.

          Also he realized that while he’s a great dancer and choreogrpaher, but with that he’s reached his limits. He’s not a great director, not a great recording artist, he’s not “international superstar” material. A lot of people would have been happy with his career, but apparently he aimed for a lot more. And now he seems to blame those ambitions on Michael and seems to think by telling him he’s going to be huge in this or that area Michael set him up for failure. I think that’s probably where his sense of entitlement comes from. You cannot sue someone for a failed prophecy so he needed to make up something for that he can sue (child molestation allegations), but I think he probably justifies it in his mind this way: MJ deserves it because he “ruined his career”, so he must pay. It’s not true of course, but this is what he seems to think in his probably pathological mind.

          And the responsibility shifting is not only in defense of himself but in defense of his mother as well. While Michael might have kindly told him he’s going to be huge in this or that, but Michael wasn’t the person who put him under real pressure to succeed. I read an interview with his mother from the mid 90s where she tells about how dissatisfied she was with what they had achieved in their first three years in the US, how she took Wade to three-four auditions a day. She was a real pushy tiger mom. Michael had nothing to do with that (the article also states: “While Michael was their friend, he never interfered with Wade’s career … only to offer advice, but the ultimate decision was Joy and Wades’”.) Yet, there is no any type of blaming of his mother in Wade’s story. He blames solely Michael for putting him under pressure to pursue a career, but not his mother.

          I think this is his real problem but since you cannot sue someone for helping you with your career as a child, he needed a story for that he can sue so enter molestation allegations.

          I think Wade was the pride of his family for all these years, someone from whom the whole family expected huge things. But he obviously has his limits there. Instead of having to say “I just don’t have the talent to direct movies” or to become an “international superstar” now he can play the victim, he can allow himself to go to Hawaii and do nothing in the name of “healing” and shift the blame on someone else for his and his family’s failures.

          1. Something is definitely wrong with him. I don’t know. I’ve said before that sometimes he just seems like pure evil to me these days, but I suspect the more likely truth is that some kind of psychosis is going on.

          2. I agree that there is a psychosis going on. I actually believe the two breakdowns. Also, let’s not forget that there have been mental illness in his family (his father had a sever case of bipolar disorder which made him commit suicide in 2002), so he might be prone to mental problems.

    2. “At the time I dismissed them as them being them but now because we can make a direct link to the Topix trolls and Par, MJ Facts and DSSL it looks to me like they gave Wade and James help in contriving their stories months if not a year in advance of them coming forward.”

      Exactly.

  15. Look he is showing his study material. I have a comment that I made on the hearts in you hand FB account he set up last summer. One of the first one he added was the first book another was a link to Male Survivors.org. I commented that it was strange that this wonderful resource was also recommended to Brett Barnes by Desiree two years before that. I asked him if she had recommended the same site to him. The next day he took down the page.Another coincidence I am sure.

    1. That’s very interesting.

      James’ allegations especially sound like a collection of tabloid stories from the past 20 years. Interesting to observe how a lie becomes “someone’s truth”. For example, he says he’s been molested in “the secret closet” in MJ’s bedroom. That “secret closet” has been an obsession of tabloids and haters for two decades suggesting MJ used it to molest children in it, but in reality no accuser has ever claimed such a thing, so it was nothing but a tabloid obsession. And now James does claim this, following those tabloid stories.

      I’m pretty sure these people read hater websites and books like Dimond’s etc. before constructing their allegations. They are just too modelled after hater myths which has never been corroborated and which have not even been claimed before by other accusers, but were out there as tabloid speculations.

      1. Safechuck and Wade also claims that MJ installed an alarm in his bedroom so that no one would catch him molesting children when in reality, the alarm was there when he brought the property. The most bizarre of James Safechuck’s claims is the wedding that he and MJ supposedly had. My question is, who married them? How can you have a wedding without a minister? and why didn’t MJ marry any of his other accusers? And don’t even get me started on Wade’s bizarre claim about MJ being his god and writing his fate…lol

        1. I think the whole wedding thing comes as a twist from that 1989 story when MJ and Safechuck were seen in a jewelry store looking at or buying rings. IMO it’s a twist on that story, simply because rings were mentioned in it.

          Even in Disguise, Michael Jackson Gets Attention
          May 03, 1989|PHILIP GOLLNER | Times Staff Writer

          There was something suspicious about the customer in the Zales Jewelers store in Simi Valley on Monday afternoon.

          Maybe it was the wig. Or the phony-looking mustache and teeth.

          But the thin man in the red baseball cap wasn’t casing the joint, as employees feared when they called police.

          It was singer Michael Jackson, hoping not to be noticed.

          The encounter happened about 5 p.m. in the Sycamore Plaza mall. Wearing his get-up, [b]Jackson was looking at rings [/b].

          Employee Julie Andrews (not the singer) said she became suspicious because he kept adjusting his mustache and looking in a mirror. Another Zales store had recently been robbed by men wearing disguises.

          Employees summoned security guard H. N. Edwards, who asked the suspicious character to step outside. Why was he wearing a false mustache? Edwards demanded.

          “I have to,” he answered. “I’m in disguise. I’m Michael Jackson.”

          “My first thought was this guy had gotten off the elevator between floors,” Edwards said Tuesday.

          Jackson, one of the best-known pop singers in America, said the disguise was necessary to avoid being mobbed.

          Edwards asked him to remove the mustache. He did and, sure enough, fans began gathering and asking for autographs. Three squad cars arrived.

          “The officers were convinced he was who he said he was, and he went on his way,” Officer Diane Sliester said Tuesday.

          Jackson and a boy he was with visited a gift store and bought several toy figurines and a pair of heart-shaped sunglasses, Sliester said. Then they drove away in a brown Mercedes-Benz.

          There is also a video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI-6A_AIsZ8

          1. I think Safechuck got the wedding idea from the Eddie Long case. Eddie Long is or was a prominent black clergyman who was accused of having sex with a string of young men over the years. They claimed that he coerced them with expensive clothes, jewelry, and even cars, and one said he conducted a de facto marriage ceremony, complete with Bible readings justifying the relationship. While Long most likely did have sexual relationships with his accusers, they were not underage children, and some were involved in criminal activity. One of the accusers was an obsessed street hustler who possibly never even met Long. Long settled out of court for $2,000,000, which they blew through in no time, so they began giving interviews, which violated the confidentiality agreement. Long has sued to recover the payout.

          2. Yes, could be. And while we are at the topic of inspiration for these allegations. I wonder why Wade included anal rape while no other accuser before him claimed such a thing. And you know what was going on in the US media when in May 2012 he first came up with his allegations? The Sandusky case. So I wonder if he took inspiration from that.

          3. Good catch! And if that story was out there, Jimmy knows he can use it as a way to give support to his story.

        2. The wedding is a really bizarre claim to me, but it has been piled atop a heap of similarly bizarre claims. I would suspect if there was any seed of truth at all to the story, it was most likely a joke. Obviously, no such “real” or legal ceremony was performed; if so, Jimmy would have had to have gotten a divorce before he could marry his wife! (or is he a bigamist, too? Lol, I have to laugh because it’s just so insane!).

      2. It is pretty easy to establish how they are piecing a lot of this stuff together. I would really like to go through and do a thorough rebuttal of their claims one by one, and would like to devote at least one entire post to that topic alone.

  16. Dear friends, thank you very much for the excellent job you are doing. As someone who is now torn between Michael and analysis of the devilish processes taking place in my country I haven’t had much chance to follow the latest developments around Robson and Safechuck, so Raven’s post and the follow-up comments became a great schooling for me.
    I very much hope to join your forces soon. If you can please help me with corrections, clarifications, etc. since I’ve fallen terribly behind.

  17. Let me just make a note about MJ’s haters. The tabloids’ interest is clear – dragging Michael through the mud is a constant and sure way to boost their sales, so nothing else could be expected here. And I gather that there are even new people now, like Dylan Howard for example, who want to make a name and fortune for themselves on vilifying Michael.

    The motives of the old gang of Diane Dimond, Ron Zonen, Stacy Brown, all those “maids” and the rest of them are also clear – seeing Michael coming clean after the decades of their throwing dirt at him and realizing that people begin to ridicule THEM instead of Michael must have been a total disaster for these people, something close to their whole life falling apart. In an attempt to revive their careers and reputation, prove to the public (and themselves) that all that hate work was not in vain, and in order to reverse the tide and turn it against Michael, these of his haters will stop at nothing now. They are seeking revenge and since it is their now-or-never chance we can expect the worst from this people. They are actually fighting not so much against Michael, but for themselves.

    And people like “desiree”, MJfacts or Topix people seem to me a very special group. They remind me very much of thousands of trolls now working for the Russian regime all over the internet – there are too many similarities between them to be ignored. These professionals often have a big following among misinformed and brainwashed people who genuinely believe in what they are being told, but the instigators themselves are simply cynical liars who are doing a job.

    We know that they are doing a job by the fact that they intentionally ignore all evidence of Michael’s innocence and cherry pick things that suit their agenda only. This is how propagandists work – they are not interested in matters of truth. Their only preoccupation is twisting facts so that they suit their goals once again no matter what new evidence refuting their arguments appears. You provide a ton of evidence of Michael’s innocence and they ignore half of it, distort the other half and fabricate new dirt in order to reach their goals. This is probably how Robson and Safechuck came into picture – they were contacted by these professionals and even persuaded in some way (most probably through big money) to take their side.

    What I mean is that professional haters have an agenda and sponsors. And besides standing up for Michael, we need to also look into both their agenda and who the sponsors are.

    1. Yeah. Unfortunately I wish I didn’t have as much insight as I do into this subject, but I do from having lived it. That being said, incest abuse is often categorized somewhat differently from when the abuser is either a stranger or family friend. It carries with it its own unique set of circumstances and consequences for the victim, since the perpetrator is not only an abuser but also a family member. With fathers and daughters, it is an even more abuse of power and authority on the part of the adult. A child in that circumstance is completely trapped, and often telling the mother is not an option. Sometimes the mother refuses to believe it, and/or may take her anger out on the child instead, seeing it as an act of betrayal. I can’t imagine any mother feeling that way about her own daughter, but there have been far too many real life cases like that. In my case, my mother believed me but she was weak; always has been. She didn’t have a way out, or enough skills to make it on her own, and preferred some kind of security to no security at all. Plus, she has always loved my dad and never wanted to think of him as a bad person. She preferred to believe that this was something we could “work through” and that with God and counseling, everything would be fine. The irony is that she hung on, trying to make it work, until he LEFT HER. But he always preferred to keep his perversions “in the family.” That is often how incestuous pedophiles work. They know it is too risky to go outside the family and prey on other peoples’ kids (and in my dad’s case, I believe part of the thrill for him was the conquest of a daughter or niece). I don’t hate my father today. He served fifteen years in prison. He is trying hard now to put his life back together; he says he has found God and as far as I know, is struggling to stay on a righteous path. I do not know how successful he will be, for pedophilia is a sickness and I don’t think will alone is enough to conquer it. I have tried to forgive him, but it has been hard. I generally just pray for him and try to keep my distance as much as possible (I am a much better and happier person when I’m not around him, because being around him for too long just brings it all back). Sometimes he gets a bit of an attitude about it, but I once told him, “Look, most daughters who’ve been through what you put me through wouldn’t have ANYTHING to do with you” and then he cries and gets all repentant and “I’m so sorry” and then I feel bad all over again like I did something wrong. He’s a manipulator and, despite his words of contrition, I still don’t think he has any real remorse for anything he’s done. He was in prison for fifteen years and spent the entire time convinced that everyone had ganged up to “frame” him, but then sometimes he will get on his kicks where he beats himself up pretty good and then I end up pitying him, but our whole family knows his games and the sad part about it is that a part of him (the part that is normal and isn’t sick) wants to be a bigger part of our lives. He has missed out completely on his grandson’s life (and that grandson now wants nothing to do with him). He is genuinely hurt when he isn’t invited to family functions, or can only attend if the children (my nieces and nephews) aren’t present. But he did it to himself. It is a constant struggle, but when I see him now-an old man whom I know will not live too many more years-I try to ask what God would want me to do, while still keeping my own sanity in the process. I think we are probably handling it about as well as it can be, given the circumstances.

      This is the reason why, when I look at Michael’s struggles with his relationship with his father, I can so empathize. It’s like there is a part of you that loves them because they are your father, and yet a part of you that hates them for what they did to you when you were vulnerable and helpless. There is a part of you that wants to forgive, and a part of you that feels physically sick when you are in the same room with them. There is a part of you that tries to hang onto whatever good memories there are, even if the bad ones always blot them out. There is a part of you that feels guilt because you think even if this person did bad things to you, they are still your parent and maybe you owe them some degree of loyalty (after all, doesn’t the bible command us to “Honor thy father and mother?”).

      My dad can also be so clueless. I have mentioned before that my younger sister is gay. She recently married her partner of two years, and I flew up to Rhode Island to attend the wedding. I was the only family member she had there. My dad and I had a conversation right before I left. He said God would judge my sister for the life she is living. I told him that he, of all people, had no right to judge anyone for anything. The phone got so quiet on the other end you could have heard a pin drop, and I could tell I’d struck a nerve. He never likes to “go there.” He likes to pretend that all of that stuff-everything he did-is in the past and we’re moving on because everything is just all honky dory now and it’s all “I forgive you,” etc. So I waited out the pause and finally he said, “You’re right.” And that was it. For him, that’s about as good as it gets.

      1. “I do not know how successful he will be, for pedophilia is a sickness and I don’t think will alone is enough to conquer it.”

        Yes it’s true that pedophiles cannot control their urges, but they can however control whether or not they act on them. So yes, it is possible for a person to stop molesting children after getting caught.

        1. In his case, he’s definitely “scared straight” because he doesn’t want to go back to prison. He won’t even sneeze without contacting the police to make sure he has permission to do it. But what remains a big concern for me is how he will not take responsibility for his actions. Sometimes he will get on his kicks where he will say “I’m sorry” but it’s as if in his mind, what he did was no more serious or life affecting than if he’d yelled at me or smacked me a little too hard with a belt. He has no comprehension of the vast, lifelong emotional and mental trauma that a victim of sexual child abuse carries. That part of it just sails completely over his head. It’s like there is a part of him that understands what he did was wrong because society says it’s wrong, but in his own mind, he didn’t hurt anyone and he didn’t deserve to spend fifteen years in prison. One of the last times I visited him in prison (and this was after serving 15 years and alllll the therapy and rehabilitation he was supposed to have undergone, which I’m sure included the need to accept responsibility for his actions) he had the nerve to say, “I don’t understand why somebody couldn’t have called me ahead of time, so I could have gotten rid of that stuff.” I just looked at him, shaking my head in disgust. I said, “Yes, and if you’d gotten rid of it, it would have only been a matter of time before you were right back doing it again. It wouldn’t have stopped you.” He got angry when I said that because he never likes to hear the truth. In his mind, we should have all banded together to protect and enable him-his whole problem is that this is how he’s lived his whole life, with people protecting him, enabling him, making excuses for him and lying for him.

          My dad was such a fine, upstanding citizen (never even had a traffic ticket) that a lot of people really did think he had been framed. That, of course, has only served to justify in his own mind that he didn’t deserve what he got. This is why nothing makes me angrier than when I encounter haters who try to say that I have no idea what it’s like when no one believes your story of being abused. On the contrary, I know all too well-which is why I would certainly never do it to another individual without very good, justifiable reason. I would always be quick to tell anybody, “No, my dad wasn’t framed. He did exactly what he was arrested for, and he deserved what he got.”

          I do believe he’s sincere in trying to clean up his act now (even if, again. for no other reason except he definitely doesn’t want to get caught again). He is 71 years old now. If he ever goes back, he won’t live to come out a second time. He lost everything as a result of that conviction-his home, his job, his life’s savings, his possessions. He came out of prison with nothing but the clothes on his back, but at least he did have one good friend who has stood by him and has helped him get on his feet again. But we do have to monitor a lot of his activities to make sure he isn’t falling back into old habits. This same well meaning friend of his was going to buy him a computer recently. I was just like, Are you nuts?! That’s the LAST thing he needs.

          It’s a shame that his life has turned out this way, but he brought it on himself. A part of me pities him because I don’t think he can help the way he is. Yes, he can control the choices he makes but to some extent it’s like dealing with an addiction. One has to be ever vigilant that he doesn’t become vulnerable to the “triggers” that compelled him to act on those urges. And that is a never ending struggle, although like I said, for the sake of my sanity, I distance myself from it as much as possible. I have to realize that he’s an adult and only he is responsible for the choices he makes.

  18. Thank you for analysis . totally agree with this. The goal is to destroy Michael.. He has ideas too noble of change of the world. Thank you for him and his justice. This is my struggle.much love to you and God bless you

  19. Apologies for my ramblings below. Haven’t proofread it, but feel the need to post it anyway.

    Raven, you said: “Weitzman irritates me to no end with his one-note lame statement every time these allegations are mentioned. It is frustrating because it always the leaves the impression that they are not disputing the validity of the claims, only the length of time they took to bring them about.”

    Thanks to many of the informed comments here I think I now have a better understanding of why the Estate is issuing these seemingly lame, limiting defenses of Michael. Their best bet is to get the cases dismissed and that is what they are focusing on. Unfortunately it does leave the impression that they are not disputing the validity of the claims. Which is what they will have to do if the cases are allowed to go forward. Unfortunately if they are successful in dismissing these cases this will not be a win for Michael (as the allegations will not have been exposed as false) but perceived as guilt swept under a mere technicality. For haters this will be pouring rocket fuel on a fire–“The monster has gotten away with it again!”

    And thanks to Gradstein and company, in collusion with unscrupulous media like Radaronline, all the alleged “heinous dirt” is already out there. At the beginning of this tragedy Gradstein promised the public he would produce a “monster.” And in collusion with tabloid media slavering for anything vicious to sully Michael with, Gradstein has (in many ways) already fulfilled this promise. He created his “Michael as Monster” play well over a year ago–complete with scenery, elaborate props, cast of characters, acts, and scenes, and he has stage-managed his play brilliantly. In addition, he’s got ready-made audience willing even slavering to buy tickets.

    Raven you implied somewhere above that “Thank God” public opinion does not come into play in a courtroom or for a jury. But tragically, this is not true. Regardless of one’s innocence or acquittal, criminal court trials by themselves have permanent stigmatizing consequences for the defendant. True, the jury formally exonerated Michael on all counts in 2005. But simultaneously the proceedings provoked the media and its undiscriminating constituents to snidely lash out that Michael was a monster who’d, through some lawyerly slick sleigh-of-hand, “gotten away with it.” The imagined dregs of the evidence in this trail are where the haters get their fuel from. All that damning evidence, they say–that through Mesereau’s cunning–was buried, disallowed. What about the sheets! What about the semen! What about the unseen FBI files! What about those “boy” books!

    The timing of Michael’s 2005 trial was also inauspicious–he had the terrible misfortune of being dragged into it on the tawdry slime-trail of the O.J. Simpson trial. That verdict outraged the nation and incited despicable prejudicial reactions. The mostly black jury members were accused of “playing the race card”–letting an obvious murderer go free. And then there was the snide-white-elite-machine that had the gall to suggest that “a more intelligent white jury” wouldn’t have been have been bamboozled by the glove trick and the hard to understand DNA stuff, or Cochran’s melodramatics.

    Cochran won fair-and-square not because Simpson was innocent, not because he wasn’t a cold-blooded killer, but because the prosecution was grossly incompetent. As one juror said–outraged at the accusation that she had declared Simpson innocent merely because they shared the same skin color, “I was asked to judge the evidence as presented. Nobody asked me if I THOUGHT HE WAS GUILTY.”

    A constant mantra of the hater’s is a mocking comparison of Michael’s acquittal to the travesty of Simpson’s: “NOT GUILTY IS NOT THE SAME AS INNOCENT!!!” they scream. The difference in the credibility of the trial evidence and witnesses is not even considered: overwhelming evidence of guilt in O.J.’s case, no credible evidence in Michael’s. This is a moot point with Michael haters–a slavering, blood-thirsty mob, determined at any cost, to eviscerate him. They are rabid with hate–on a “just” mission to rip his heart out at any cost–because they truly do think he is a monster who has gotten away with it. So many perceived similarities between the O.J. trail and Michael’s: powerful black men; million dollar defense teams; both celebrities; a supposedly “stupid” star-struck jury. And then Michael–with a dumfounding lack of guile–evoking Simpson as an example of why he decided to cave in to the Chandler’s in 1993: “I didn’t want to do a long-drawn out thing like O.J.” Oh, Michael.

    And now they have a self-anointed champion–their very own “Slayer of Evil” in the form of Gradstein–a powerful attorney who has legitimate access to the corridors of power and legal courts of law they don’t have.

    And with a 33% stake (or more) in a billion dollar payday, he has a lot of incentive do his job well. He’s been hired to produce a monster. It’s his job to deliver a monster. It doesn’t matter if the monster is a work of fiction or not. And the crime? more heinous than murder! He’s damned lucky with the public he’s got to convince, as they were already gullible to half-believing in a monster anyway. He’s damned lucky in his cast of characters: slimy maids & others willing to spew filth; an “unjustly injured” doctor waiting in the wings; a vulnerable-child victim only now realizing years of “sexual abuse” who has “bravely” come forward with the selfless mission to help other silenced terribly-damaged “survivors”. The villain? Rich and powerful. Crazy! An eccentric human mocked for decades by the tabloid press. AKA as Jacko. A freak! The Devil! Thinks he’s Peter Pan! Subject of a disastrous expose seen by thirty million people! Already tried in a court of law for molestation in “the trial of the century” seen by millions of viewers world-wide. Previous “mysterious” payout for the same “suspected” crime–a spectacular $20,000,000! You couldn’t ask for a less sympathetic villain. And talk about the scenes! Never-land! Posh hotels! Secret closets! An apartment called “The Hideaway”! And the props! carnival rides, porno magazines, hot-air balloons, wine cellar, Jesus-juice, hot tubs! Diamond bracelets! a chimp named Bubbles! Even the costumes (iconic and famous) are over-the-top spectacular!

    Brainwashing! Stockholm Syndrome! Phantom of the Opera stuff! A self-mutilated, deformed monster! A panting, paying audience already screaming “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

    Gradstein couldn’t have asked for better material to work with. In addition the crime is an incredibly hot-button issue that always favors the accuser! It’s almost political suicide to disbelieve an alleged victim of child sexual abuse–even worse to insinuate they might be lying.

    Taking all of this into account, it’s easy to see why the Estate is between a “rock and a hard place.” Why we are all boiling with disbelief and indignation. Why Tom Mesereau is troubled by the Estate’s lack of courage. “I think Gradstein . . . doesn’t think they have the courage to try a case like this after the settlements they entered into in the past. So that really bothers me. Henry Gradstein is a smart lawyer and this is a very creative lawsuit he put together trying to sue Michael Jackson years after he’s dead.”

    Creative indeed. Our version of Michael is simply so much less confabulated, imaginative and mouthwatering than theirs.

    When even Tom Mesereau becomes troubled about the possibility that the Estate might blow this case, it fills me with dread.

    1. Thanks for your thought provoking comment. You have hit so many proverbial nails on the head at once, and yes, this is exactly the nature of the beast we are dealing with. And I agree that even if the cases are dismissed, that does nothing to exonerate Michael; it is merely sweeping the mess under the rug.

      I have to go now, but I will comment more when I’m able to get back here either later today or tomorrow.

    2. I understand what you are saying but I still stand by my words that public opinion does not affect jury/court decisions. If that were the case, we would have had none of the shocking verdicts that we have had in the last decades’ worth of high profile cases. Again, look at how many trials have played out where the public was screaming for the heads of the defendants-Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, etc-yet in all of these cases, the jury’s decision was certainly not based on popular opinion. And again, if that were the case, then Michael would have most certainly been convicted in 2005.

      What you are referring to has more to do with the court of public opinion, which as we know, sometimes IS a bigger factor than what a jury decides. For example, even though OJ was acquitted, most of the world decided he was guilty and has branded him as a murderer ever since. George Zimmerman will always be the racist who shot an unarmed black teenager in cold blood, no matter what a jury decided. Casey Anthony will always be the heartless mom who murdered her daughter.

      And thus, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out why, for many, Michael Jackson is still the guy who got away with child molestation even after a Not Guilty verdict on 14 counts. The media is what drives and creates this blood lust, and it is the media that creates the court of public opinion.

      While this may not affect how a jury votes, it can and does continue to have a detrimental impact on the person’s life-perhaps in some cases deservedly so; others, perhaps not.

      There is a petition circulating asking the estate to hire Mesereau to defend this case. I don’t know if you have seen it. However, I guess we need to see how these hearings play out first.

  20. Does anyone remember now that prior to the haters’ info.facts site there was a very strange so-called “fan” site which also claimed to provide facts about Michael but also hinted profusely that he was a ped-le?

    The site was rather well-known after Michael’s death and I constantly came across their materials all over internet. Reading their texts and especially the comments was quite a shock. Those “fans” were openly spreading lies about Michael but with one difference though – they said they “didn’t mind it” and justified ped-lia which they were wrongly attributing to MJ.

    In short the site was a combination of stealthy lies about MJ and a formal admiration for him which was so a disgusting mix that I preferred to forget about it and didn’t copy anything from the site.

    Now I wish I had. I remember that it had something to do with “facts” too and it is quite possible that this earlier site was a predecessor to the current mjfacts site. But now they have become much more cautious and no longer reveal their acceptance and even propaganda of ped-lia.

    Does anyone happen to remember the name of the site? Or does anyone have any materials from it? It seems to me that there is a connection here.

    1. I don’t know the particular site you are referring to although it sounds very much like a forerunner to the current MJFacts site. This is a disturbing line of reasoning that I have come across from some of these sites, which is that it’s perfectly okay to continue to be a fan and supporter of Michael as long as one accepts that he was a pedophile (their words, not mine). This, of course, directly contracts the justification of the alleged pedophilia as the reason for the hate. I have directly caught more than a couple of these haters completely contradicting themselves on this front. You see, for a lot of them-I would assume perhaps the more honest ones-it isn’t so much that people still admire and support Michael that sticks in their craw. It’s the fact that fans defend his innocence.

      This hints at a much more sinister motivation that goes all the way back to Guiterrez and his mission. A lot of these current haters, especially Desiree, embrace and openly promote the Carl Toms (Thomas O’Carroll) book for this very reason. This is an even more dangerous modus operandi than trying to “prove” him guilty of these alleged crimes. The actual motivation in some cases, rather, is to convince fans (and the world) that Michael should be embraced for “who he was” or “what he was” without the stigma, and that if fans will just be honest in accepting this and discontinue all attempts to “vindicate” him then apparently a kind of cease fire would be declared. (This is only my interpretation, of course, but I don’t suspect I’m too far off). Even now, there are some things on the MJFacts site which subtley hint at this very idea; that it’s “okay” to continue to admire Michael Jackson’s music and artistry as long as one can come to terms with the fact that he committed crimes against children.

      However, such reasoning would seem to go against the very grain of people who claim, out of the other side of their mouth, that their biggest goal is “justice” for the “victims.” So…is it REALLY about “justice” or is it about using MJ’s name to try to shift the public perception of pedophilia towards acceptance? Because if we come to a point where we, as a society, are accepting Michael as guilty and yet continuing to love and admire his work, that is exactly what is happening. We are, in essence, condoning pedophilia. The very idea is abhorrent to most normal thinking people, even if, granted, we can forgive our artists for most of their human flaws. But sexual crimes against children are so far beyond the pale that it’s just hard to imagine anyone ever embracing this as “normal” or “acceptable” or even as something that raises no more of an eyebrow than being gay or lesbian. Yet I do believe very much there is a faction at work who are using Michael for that very purpose. And if you read most of the propaganda from these sites, what becomes especially telling is that none of them will ever condemn actual, outted pedophiles-people LIKE O’Carroll and Guiterrez-but, rather, will even praise them for their research. And does it not bother them in the least to help line the pockets of pedophiles, so long as the end result is being able to “glean” some imagined info on Michael? So what about the children who were victims of people like O’Carroll? Do they count for nothing? Is all of this hypocritical rage and sense of pretended injustice reserved only for the “victims” of Michael?

      1. Exactly. There is definitely a fraction of these haters who seem to have an odd, creepy view about pedophilia. I also noticed they use a lot of NAMBLA vocabulary (eg. “boylover” is a NAMBLA euphemism) and also adopt NAMBLA ideas and arguments – for example, their distinction of child molesters and “boylovers”, when in fact they are the exact same. But NAMBLA would like people to believe that there are “good pedophiles” and that there can be a consent sexual relationship between a child and an adult which does not harm children. And that’s why they invented this term “boylover” – to try to act as if there are child molesters (the “boylovers”) who do not harm children and who have sex with children who “give consent”. Of course, it’s a lot of BS. Victor Guiterrez used this argument in several interviews and his book as well. And of course, that is also on the agenda of Carl Toms.

        This quote is from Guiterrez’s book. Can it be made more clear why Michael is needed to be portrayed as a pedophile for these people and for what agenda?

        “The cliché of pedophiles as old men who kidnap children in sacks is as erroneous as thinking that all homosexual men attack other male pedestrians on the street. Psychiatrists report that there are pedophile rapists and murderers, just as there are homosexuals and heterosexuals who commit these crimes. These same experts indicate that sexual relations between adults and minors are sometimes loving and do not have a negative effect on the youngster’s life. What better example than Jordie? He was more harshly affected by the legal procedures associated with his case than by his relationship with Jackson.”

        There was a movie that the Word of Wonder productions wanted to make of VG’s book. Based on what is said in a 2006 interview with GQ by the two producers, Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, like the book, the film would have also served the agenda of portraying supposed child molestation as a consensual, love relationship:

        “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.”

        Earlier in the article Barbato is quoted as saying:

        “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.”

        Barbato also acknowledges that their movie “goes outside of any of the acceptable norms”:

        “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.”

        Of course, MJ and Jordan’s so called relationship is ideal for this agenda, because Jordan did not show any sign of being psychologically injured by these alleged acts. He did not need therapy and he did not seem to be affected by them when you read, for example, the Gardner interview. So they use Jordan and hold him up as an example where a child is clearly not affected by it and was even “a willing and eager participant” . The problem in their logic is, of course, that it’s not because sexually molesting a child is not harmful, but it’s because Michael never molested him. That is why he does not show symptoms of being affected, not because he was an “eager participant”.

        A lot of haters actually know of this agenda and they do not care. Like you said, they do not have a problem promoting books and other material by real, convicted pedophiles (Carl Toms) or by shamless pedophilia advocates (Guiterrez). I remember that Desiree for example did acknowledge that Guiterrez is likely a pedophile. So that’s another give away about their true motives and priorities which is not to protect children.

        Another give away of their true state of mind is when they describe the alleged molestations in terms such as “bootycalls”. Sorry, but if you truly believe these things happened and if you have respect for the alleged victims you will not call their alleged molestation “bootycalls”.

        And then there is the harrassment of peoeple who they believe to be victims. Such as Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman etc. And when they say they were not molested they get angry and call them all kind of names. Where is the empathy in that? Either they should be glad that they were not molested or if they still believe they were and they are just lying that’s still not a reason to insult them and you would not do that if you had true concern and empathy for the alleged victims. But they just want people to say incriminating things about MJ, they do not care if it’s true or not. And when they don’t get that they get angry and show their true colors.

        1. Bailey and Barbato are the producers of Life with La Toya, which is on OWN, the Oprah Winfrey network. You know, THE Oprah Winfrey, the Avenging Angel of molestation victims everywhere. It’s hard to believe she would work with producers without vetting them thoroughly. On her many shows featuring victims of sexual abuse, she seemed curiously less than compassionate toward them, and more invested in talking about the details of the molestation. She seldom missed an opportunity to link Michael to molestation or drug addiction to her audience. She seemed to get off on it. Very strange.

        2. I know. Very ironic, isn’t it? It’s also ironic that a lot of those journalists who were trashing MJ in articles, books and TV “documentaries” used Guiterrez as an advisor. A screenshot the credit list of Dateline NBC’s “Inside the Jackson Case” documentary where VG is listed as a consulting producer: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dateline-nbc-image.jpg

          The 2006 GQ article also claimed he was a consultant to Bashir’s documentary, although it does not say which one – Living with MJ or the second one. Diane Dimond called him her “best source”. Maureen Orth also used him as a source. Etc. etc.

          Now, it’s very hard for me to believe that none of these people background checked VG before hiring/consulting him. None of them took a look at his book and to none of them it raised a red flag about VG’s true agenda. How can it not raise a red flag when the guy thanks NAMBLA in the foreword and then writes stuff like the above quoted? Not to mention the fact that VG was Court ordered to pay MJ $2.7 million for lying about him previously so how are you going to use such a person as a consultant and expert on MJ and treat his stories as fact?

          It’s clear that much of the media did not care about any journalistic standards and ethics as long as VG provided the salacious headlines they wanted. Money talks.

          As for World of Wonder. They are very creepy people too. As you can see from the above quotes they are fully aware of and supportive of VG’s agenda to portray supposed child molestation as some kind of consensual romance. Moreover they write about Jordan on their website in very inappropriate terms – openly lusting after him. Of course, he’s an adult now, but since his claim to fame is that of an alleged molestation victim, this language is just very inappropriate and creepy about him. For example:

          “Jordie Chandler, the little boy who made the 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson and started him on his long professional decline, is pictured here in 2007 looking absolutely luscious. I remember in the late ’90s, after the book that Jordie worked on with Victor M. Gutierrez, Michael Jackson Was My Lover, came out, Jordie had told Victor that he wanted a job and there was some talk of him coming to intern here at World of Wonder. Of course he never showed and it was all quickly forgotten. But Lord have mercy, can you imagine if this burning hunk of man meat had actually ended up working here? Holy Moly! (PS: I re-read the book over the weekend, and I must say there is a lot of merit to his story. It certainly provides more than few talking points in the Michael Jackson debate, and is worth reading if only to counterbalance the over-the-top mythologizing that’s happening right now.) (t/y Brett)”

          http://worldofwonder.net/the-boy-in-the-michael-jackson-molestation-case-today/

          (I see VG fed them with tales as well – telling them that Jordan wanted to work for World of Wonder. LOL.)

          Here’s another article entitled “Happy Birthday, Victor Guiterrez”: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=vy06x0&s=8#.VALJ06MVQv0

          “give Jordan a big sloppy kiss from me if you see him”.

          And yes, these are the people Oprah works with which is very ironic from her, because she likes to pose as this grand advocate of child sex abuse victims. Meanwhile she fills the pocket of people who openly advocate pedophilia. Of course, it’s possible she does not know about this background of these people. But then why does she not background check the people she works with better? And LaToya is an opportunistic idiot so I’m not even going to talk about her.

          1. I suspect that some of this apparent salivating over Jordan Chandler’s looks is designed to lend more credence to the idea of Michael molesting him. The idea they’re trying to present is that if indeed Michael was a gay or bisexual man with an attraction to males, there is certainly no way he could have resisted this “hunk”-even at 12/13 years old!

            Even Jordan’s own dad reportedly made comments about his son’s looks and how they could be used to “bait” Michael Jackson (this according to Carrie Fisher’s story).

            These people ARE creepy!

          2. I agree that a lot of this bragging about Jordan’s look is to make him out to be irresistible. Ray Chandler too said in one of his National Enquirer interviews around 1998 that he looked like a male model. They always made sure to make a remark about how irresisibly good looking he was. Just creepy indeed. On the other hand the Chandlers also seem to be pretty vain. In Ray Chandler’s book Evan is also described as “a better looking version of Rob Lowe”. WTH? LOL.

          3. Maybe the Chandlers, Bailey, and Barbato were all caught up with Jordan’s ‘exotic’ racially-mixed background, but I don’t think most people find him so extraordinarily good looking as to be irresistible. As for their salivating over the prospect of very young Jordan Chandler working in their office, B and B, like most perverts, greatly over-estimate their own attractiveness. Why would he want to be lusted over by a couple of old, creepy, gay guys?

        3. I don’t think this film could have possibly flown as long as Michael was alive. The company would have been sued. Surely they can’t just make a movie portraying a celebrity as a pedophile, without expecting legal repercussions! Thankfully this disgusting project fell through. But imagine…the very nerve!

          1. And I think the Jordan might have sued as well as the Chandlers do not embrace VG’s book. (Even though I believe they first probably worked together on a book, then fell out and VG published his version, then Ray published his.)

  21. Raven, your quote “Something is definitely wrong with him. I don’t know. I’ve said before that sometimes he just seems like pure evil to me these days, but I suspect the more likely truth is that some kind of psychosis is going on.”

    Just my opinion – I don’t really believe Wade had a breakdown – I think he is putting on a show. I would like to know what he would do if Prince, Paris or Blanket confronted him face to face with his disgusting lies.

    I don’t know if you heard King Jordan’s radio blog last night, but Tom Mesereau was asked by a caller if anyone in the Jackson family had reached out to him regarding the latest allegations. He stated that the Estate had not, but that he is willing to work with them on the condition that they also hire his associate Susan Yu and that they DO NOT SETTLE this case. He also said that someone in the Jackson family did reach out to him, although, he did not mention who, as that was confidential.

    Diane Dimond has given her two cents on the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson. Once again she tries to portray herself as this unbiased, fact-finding “journalist”. Here is a quote from her article:

    “What else was reported incorrectly as this saga spun so out of control? When did we stop waiting for all the facts of a case to come out before making up our minds? Knee-jerk conclusions are so often wrong.”

    If you want to have another chuckle her “facebook friend” Stacy Brown left this comment to her article:

    “Faebook Friend Stacy Brown writes: “The primary problem is that too many in our field of journalism, particularly over the past few years CNN and MSNBC, have decided that it’s better for the journalist to highlight their own opinions on matters instead of just presenting the news and letting viewers and readers make their own decisions. Unfortunately, the days of the great, “let the viewer/reader decide” journalist (Walter Cronkite, Randall Pinkston (yes, he was one of my favorites), Edward R Murrow, Dan Rather, Time Russert) are long gone.” –
    Can you believe the delusion!!? I guess sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh at these idiots.

    1. I have not had a chance yet to listen to the King Jordan show. Perhaps I will do that this evening.

      Diane Dimond’s response to what happened in Ferguson is telling in more ways than one. By saying journalists should wait until they have all the facts of a case in (which, of course in itself is highly hypocritical coming from her) it also reveals that her obvious bias in this case is towards the police and Mike Brown’s killer; otherwise, she really would have no issue with those reports that favored Brown. Arguing for objectivity is usually the biggest evidence that true objectivity is not what the person wants; rather, they are usually just upset because it is not THEIR preferred version of events that is being reported.

      1. Just as a follow up, I did listen to the show yesterday. Something that struck me as interesting was listening to that 2004 interview with Weitzman where he basically tries to shift all the blame for the Chandler settlement onto Michael. I’m with Mesereua on this. I don’t believe him when he says he was opposed to that settlement.

        1. I don’t believe it either.

          In any case, the past is the past and I hope egos can be put aside when it comes to defending MJ this time.

        2. Its been a year since Wades first accusations and thursday is Safechucks hearing. If Weizman has not contacted TMez by now he clearly has no intention to do so.
          They are either confident the petition will be dismissed, or they think they are capable of handling it or for some reason or other they dont want involvement of TMez. In any case not using the lawyer whose defense strategy worked and who will know more about Wade’s state of mind when he was defending Michael, could turn out a big mistake.
          If they dont want involvement of TM I wonder if it is because they would have to give him full insight and share whatever information they have. And there maybe things they dont want him to know.
          I can imagine that not only is TM worried that they will ruin it for Michael, but it would also be a disgrace for his own work and reputation if they do.

          1. Try to be more optimistic. If the case is dismissed, they don’t need TM. If it’s allowed to go forward, there’s still time to bring TM on board.

          2. Mesereau was brought into the 2005 case rather late, also. Remember they were using Mark Geragos initially and didn’t bring TMez in until the 11th hour.

          3. Ofcourse both should be dismissed, but it will depend on more than just the statute of limitation. This seems so unprecedented, it may be a reason for the judge to let it go forward and let the court decide.
            Another thing is that Beckloff has ruled many previous cases in favor(= settlement)of Weizman. That could be positive but also negative as he may want to look unbiased in a case that is so different from other cases.
            .
            Though Mesereau joined Michaels team later on, the defense strategy in and out of court was his design, from the exposure of the Arvizo’s and line of questioning to the media approach, eliminating the NOI and race factor, humanizing, dignifying and defending the man Michael, make him less of an enigma and more sympathetic to the jury.
            The defense to prevent a case from going to trial has to be in sync with the defense if it does go to trial. Right now the only defense by Weizman, at least in the media,is the statute of limitation ‘for things that alledgedly happened many years ago.’ That is not a defense, that is trying to prevent a case from going to trial.
            You cannot compare this case to the criminal case in 2005, but a lot could be learned from it right from the start.
            There is no predicting the putcome so I am keeping it positive but also a realistic.

          4. Sina, you have touched on many of my thoughts and fears exactly, especially those regarding Tom Mesereau.

            I feel like a bird in a batting cage.

            Taking all I know into account, I know which way this case should go, but until it’s settled I live with the fear that it might turn into an unjust and unthinkable tragedy.

          5. “Ofcourse both should be dismissed, but it will depend on more than just the statute of limitation. This seems so unprecedented, it may be a reason for the judge to let it go forward and let the court decide.”

            I think the Judge will really have to bend over backwards to let it through. California law is very Plaintiff friendly in child sex abuse cases, but even within California law if this is not a case where statues of limitations should be applied then I don’t know what is. Both Robson and Safechuck have had plenty of opportunities to make these allegations when the Defendant was alive and thus could have defended himself and it could have been judged under more fair circumstances. But then they both said that he did nothing wrong. This is not a case like those historic child abuse cases where alleged victims come forward late because they fear they would not be believed or think they are alone with their experiences or because they were genuinely intimidated by the accused. I can see no good reason for the statues of limitations be extended in this case. If they do, then they as well as might abolish statues of limitations altogether.

            But then, in the law system stranger things have happened, so I’m not saying I’m totally confident, but based on what I have read in the law, I think it would be utterly strange and unfair to let it go through. While alleged victims and Plaintiffs have rights but so do Defendants and their heirs. (Let’s not forget that Robson, Safechuck and their lawyer are basically trying to take away the money of Michael’s orphaned children.)

  22. When Jimmy Savile died, over 400 people came forward claiming that he had sexually abused them. They stated that the reason they didn’t come forward earlier is because of guilt and shame and the fear of not being believed. Savile’s death made them feel safe because nothing was holding them back–no threats, no pay offs, nothing. When Michael Jackson died, no one came forward. Four to five years passes and 2 accusers come forward. Unlike Savile’s accusers, they aren’t claiming shame and guilt or fear of not being believed. They’re claiming that they always knew what happened to them and never forgot a single moment of it but was unable and unwilling to see and understand that it was wrong and that the realization had hit them when they had their own children, but shouldn’t the realization had hit them when Jackson was arrested and put on trial facing similar allegations? They now want compensation claiming that they now realize that what had happened to them was a crime whereas Savile’s victims knew all along that it was a crime and didn’t go around praising and defending him to everyone who would listen…So who’s the real pedophile?

  23. Interesting comments here –

    I wonder if it’s possible that The Estate lawyers haven’t consulted Tom Mesereau because should this go to trial they want to call him as a witness? I heard an interview in which TM spoke of the several pre-trial meetings he had w/ Wade, Wade’s mom and his sister. Times any one of them could have said “we can’t do this, MJ is guilty” but they didn’t. Might make valuable testimony, if it comes to that.

    Taken in a broader context, if the judge allows this suit to go ahead it will be open season on the estates of the wealthy deceased, precedent being what it is in our legal system.

    1. Last week Mez was asked on King Jordan radio about whether he would take this case and defend MJ if the Estate asked him. He said he would on two conditions. 1) Susan Yu would have to be hired as well, 2) there would be no settlement. He’s mainly a criminal lawyer, but he did a couple of civil cases and Susan Yu did even more, he said. And he also explained that in civil cases it is possible for a lawyer to be a witness in a case and to defend the case at the same time, so it seems it would not be a problem.

  24. There was a hearing yesterday but with no decision by the Judge. From Ivy @ MJJC:

    “Pearl: No ruling today. Another hearing in which a ruling to proceed maybe determined is Nov 6 & Nov 19

    AP: No ruling on Robson’s discovery requests. Judge said he’d rule as soon as possible. That (November) hearing will be on different issues – judge said he’d rule on today’s motion before then.”

    and

    “Today one fan / believer aka Pearl Jr was at the courtroom, she has been talking about the hearing. (I’m not gonna mention her believer stuff)

    Apparently Estate has mentioned statue of limitations being passed in 3 different ways. (26 yrs old, 1 year, 60 days.) Estate apparently saying they shouldn’t be even here, the case shouldn’t be allowed. They mentioned they are working for beneficiaries not MJ. Also mentioned there’s a reason for statue of limitations – so that Estate can close. They argued these never ending claims causes Estate not being able to closed.

    Apparently Wade / Safechuck lawyers mentioned equitable estoppel. Wade’s lawyer mentioned “compressed” memories that he remembered it when he remembered it.

    Estate said it doesn’t matter such memories can only be used in criminal cases and not at civil / probate cases.

    As the discovery goes, they asked for Neverland search info, apparently used “serial pedophile” to describe MJ. Weitzman was apparently angry and argued they do not want to agree to any discovery until after the court determines if the case will go forward or not.

    As for the interrogatories they want Estate to answer and Estate say they have no knowledge about such accusations. Apparently Robson/Safechuck lawyers mentioned Branca being a long time lawyer and be able to answer questions and mentioned the previous accusations of Chandler and Arvizos. Apparently Weitzman said there’s no way that they would have any knowledge, 93 was a settlement with no admittance of guilt and in 2005 he was acquitted. So even though there were accusations there’s no knowledge/information/evidence of guilt.”

    1. Thanks for this update. I did read yesterday about the delays (again). It’s very frustrating. I wish they would just be done with it already.

    2. “They mentioned they are working for beneficiaries not MJ.”

      While that isn’t a particularly satisfying argument to fans, that’s a smart and logical response from Weitzman. Wade and Jimmy should have sued MJ when he was alive. By trying to sue his estate, they are, in effect, suing his mother and children. Holding children responsible for the actions of a parent is fundamentally unfair, and goes against centuries of common law. If this case is allowed to go forward, then the estate’s beneficiaries, who are the de facto defendants, should be allowed to counter sue. That could get very expensive for Wade and Jimmy. In their novel decision to sue a dead man, I wonder if they considered that possible consequence?

      1. “They mentioned they are working for beneficiaries not MJ.”

        Interesting wording, way to make it the beneficaries problem instead of solving it. I wonder if the beneficiaries even know what he is doing on their behalf.

        WR and his lawyer are not stupid , they know that an estate lawyer does not work for the deceased, but for the estate ergo the beneficiaries. Ironically Weizman was not hired by the beneficiaries but came as a package deal with Branca so he is basically the executors lawyer. And on more than one occasion he showed where his loyalities lied ,not working FOR the beneficiaries but AGAINST them, like in Jackson vs AEG case and when the family asked to keep the controversial tracks from the Michael album.
        Has he made an official statement yet about selling Neverland or did he leave it up to the Online team and his Forbes mouthpiece. Is selling Neverland also in agreement with the beneficiaries?
        Is nt WR also suing him in the capacity of former managers/lawyer of Michaels company(re previous cases and settlement)and not only the estate (for compensation)

        Wade can claim any syndrome in the DSM but if only the time limit is considered, his state of mind then and now will be of no interest. Will he get another nervous breakdown if his request is dismissed and who will he blame then? His therapist who helped victimize him, his counselor who helped him make these horrible claims? His help-team who rendered Michael guilty before a judge had his say?
        I hope Weizman has the guts to not let money speak for once and countersue Wade to put an end to this once and for all. And make good for the mistakes he made in 1993 . It worked like an invitation to the likes of Francia ,Wade and maybe others who are behind the curtains salivating for Wade to succeed so they can also have a try.

    3. What are “compressed memories”? When I google it, it’s an informatics term, computers have it. LOL. I will assume either Gradstein misspoke himself or Pearl Jr. misheard it. I guess it would be repressed memories, which is also consistent with the line that Gradstein supposedly said when the Estate argued statues have been passed three different ways: “he remembered it when he remembered it”. Problem is, if it really happened and said, that this goes against what Robson claimed so far which is that it is not a repressed memory case, he always remembered, he just did not realize it was abuse. So now he did not remember? Changing their story?

      1. I wonder if they think anyone would really believe that a young boy would not realize something like anal rape as abuse – a crime that inevitably leads to physical and psychological injuries at this age? Do they really assume this is believed by anybody? This sounds so ridiculous that I doubt the common sense of any judge or lawyer in the US if this case goes forward.

        1. This is hard for me to believe, also. The acts that Jordan Chandler described-oral sex and masturbation-could more understandably be construed/manipulated as “acts of love” and would be far more believable. They are acts that might result in pleasurable feelings that a child might associate with the act. Even if it is still technically abuse because the adult is abusing their power over the child, it is understandable how a child might justify these acts in his mind as things people do to show love. Anal rape, on the other hand, produces absolutely no pleasure for the recipient (excluding adult relationships). It would be the absolute most painful, uncomfortable, and degrading act an adult male could force upon a child, and like you, I have a hard time believing any child would even remotely construe this as an act of love between willing parties (and let’s not forget, this is exactly how Wade is rationalizing why he didn’t come forward years ago; that he was brainwashed into thinking he was not being abused, but rather, a willing participant in acts of love). I believe the pain and humiliation alone would have been enough for any child who had really been subjected to this to say, “No way am I going near/being alone with this guy again, I don’t care how much money he has or what he can do for me, I never want to be in the same room with him alone again.”

          1. If you compare their personalities, childlike, shy Michael,even in his 30s to Wades assertive, mature attitude even when he was a teenager, he comes across as a streetwise kid who would not let anyone do something to him that he did not like or that would hurt. I dare say that in a way he was more mature than Michael who even though he was working as a child, was more protected than Wade was. They both started working as children, but that is where the comparison ends. I think Michael admired these over confident kids like Wade and Jordy who were the opposite of who he was, and maybe he wished he was more like them.

            I can imagine that Wade has issues considering how he grew up and I feel sorry for him. But he has to accept that this is his life. He had no problem to enjoy every second of it while it was good. Now that it is not working its someone elses fault. This is what he said about Michael.

            “Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind. He was a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moon-walk.”

            I love you Michael.
            – Wade

      2. I would imagine it’s just another way of saying “repressed memories” although it is interesting, especially considering that in court cases where precision and accuracy mean everything, accurate language and terminology is of utmost importance. “Repressed” means to force something down, as when we suppress an unpleasant thought into our subconscious. “Compress” is the act of taking something large and manipulating it so that it fits into a small space, such as folding a dress to make it fit into a small bag, or when we squeeze or crush things together to make more room (like stuffing down a pile of garbage so that the wastebasket can hold more garbage). I am wondering if, by using the specific term “compressed” in court, they are going for a whole different strategy in terms of Wade and Jimmy’s “memory” issues. This term would give them a little more wiggle room than claiming “repressed memory” which implies they remembered nothing until, like, 2013. They could claim that they “compressed” their memories so that what they DID remember took on less significance in their minds. Something along those lines. It wouldn’t surprise me if that is their new angle.

        1. I keep reminding myself that this info came through the filter of a fan who attended the court and so this “compressed memory” might be her construction. But based on the context given there was something about memory discussed (eg. “he remembered it when he remembered it”), so who knows? It would be really damining to WR if they suddenly started to throw memory issues in the mix now because earlier their stance was that he always remembered.

    4. It still concerns me that the estate seems to be taking such a weak “pass the buck” approach to this case. I know their objective right now is to get the cases thrown out and maybe it’s a smart move AT THIS TIME (after all, there is no real need to actually defend until/if the cases go to trial) but I can’t help getting the impression that their whole line of defense right now is simply saying, “We are only his executors and have nothing to do with what MJ might have or might not have done twenty-five years ago.” Very weak indeed.

  25. It is frustrating. Imagine the judge is not wanting potential appeals in the future to have any weight. Thus, he is covering his bases and taking his time.

  26. “There was a hearing yesterday but with no decision by the Judge. From Ivy @ MJJC.”

    “Pearl: No ruling today. Another hearing in which a ruling to proceed maybe determined is Nov 6 & Nov 19.”

    Jesus H. Christ. This is getting beyond ridiculous. At this rate there won’t be a ruling until Michael’s 75th birthday or beyond. I’m angry. It’s like being suspended over hot coals in purgatory. “Somebody please have mercy
    ‘Cause I just can’t take it! Stop pressuring me! Stop pressuring me! Stop pressuring me! Makes me want to scream!”

    “Tired of injustice
    Tired of the schemes!
    The lies are disgusting
    So what does it mean?
    Kicking me down,
    I got to get up!
    As jacked as it sounds
    The whole system sucks.”

    Michael sure had that right. God! Grrr!!!

    1. The fact that the judge is allowing all of these delays seems to me a matter of concern. I don’t wish to set off any alarms prematurely, but it seems to me that if the intent was to simply throw the cases out, he would have done so already. It just seems like he’s giving the plaintiffs more and more time to build their case.

      1. Raven, I was thinking the same. As I said previously, it could also mean this judge, given this specific claim, is crossing all his T’s looking ahead to potential appeals.

      2. There’s an article in the current New York Magazine about Michael Egan, the man who claims to have been raped by director Bryan Singer and other bigwigs at wild Hollywood sex parties. Egan had a hard time getting a lawyer. From the article:

        “Last fall, he (Egan) and his mother went lawyer shopping. At least one prominent sexual-abuse litigator turned Egan down: “I believe every word he’s saying,” the lawyer told me. “But he’s dead on the statute of limitations.”

        Egan’s story is problematic – he claims to have been ‘forced’ to endure sexual acts and perform them, and to use large quantities of alcohol and cocaine, yet he kept going back for more. He still might have a case because of his age. But it’s interesting that a lawyer who specializes in abuse cases turned him down. Wade’s lawyer specializes in copyright law, entertainment, and intellectual property, kind of an odd choice for an alleged sex abuse case. Did the sex abuse lawyers all refuse to take Wade’s case? Or was he referred directly to Gradstein by others, like AEG, or G’s client Quincy Jones?

        Someone posted a gratuitous comment about Jordan Chandler. I’m not computer savvy enough to figure it out, but maybe someone who is can check to see if he joined this site just to try to link MJ’s name to this case.

        http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/michael-egan-bryan-singer-lawsuit.html

        Egan has now withdrawn his suit because the shady lawyer he did manage to get ended up dumping him when he wouldn’t take a “nuisance” settlement of $100,000, and he can’t find anyone else to take his case.

        1. I’m not sure what you mean about Jordan Chandler. There is one comment mentioning him:

          “Like the Jordan Chandler (aka Michael Jackson’s “special friend”) case again and again … Who knows ?”

          I’m not sure why you think it’s personally Jordan. Anyone could make such a comment.

          From what I gathered about Jordan I think he tries to completely ignore that part of his life and his family’s history. He’s “moved on”, so to speak, which of course was not that difficult for him as he is not the one still suffering the consequences of his lies as an innocent party. So I don’t think he would care to comment such articles. I tracked down several social media pages of his family and friends and no one ever mentioned the allegations against MJ. When MJ’s name rarely comes up on those pages it’s always only in a positive manner.

          As for Egan. Didn’t he also withdraw his allegations against someone because it turned out he earlier gave statements to the police in which he denied being abused by that person? And when that information came out he dropped his allegations against that particular person in his lawsuit. I do not follow the case but I vaugely remember something like that.

          1. I don’t think it’s Jordan – as you say, he has moved on with his life, eased along by his ill-gotten gains. I was wondering if the poster is a known hater.

            Egan made statements against Bryan Singer that were easily disproved. For example, he claimed that Singer molested him in Hawaii at a time when Singer was at work in Toronto, where dozens of people could attest to his presence. Egan made his claims just as X Men was opening, leading many to believe that muddying the film’s prospects and trying to destroy Singer’s career may have been the main motives behind this case.

        2. “Wade’s lawyer specializes in copyright law, entertainment, and intellectual property, kind of an odd choice for an alleged sex abuse case. Did the sex abuse lawyers all refuse to take Wade’s case?”

          I was wondering about that too. After all there was one year between when first made his allegations to his therapist (May 2012) and when he filed his lawsuit (May 2013). So what took so long? I can imagine that he was turned down by other lawyers until he got to Gradstein who was willing to give it a try.

  27. There’s a piece on Radar Online about Weitzman asking for Jimmy’s case to be dismissed. There is a poster who is a bona fide hater, who is obsessed with MJ. Another poster has allegedly outed him by his real name. Only three people in the

    1. Sorry, accidentally uploaded my comment before it was finished! Only three people in the US have the supposed real name of the hater on the Radar Online site. One of them is – you guessed it – a registered sex offender.

      (I’m not using names out of an abundance of caution. It’s not hard to figure out who it is.)

      1. I believe the disgus profile name of the hater is “d u – – ma”. He has been stalking MJ news websites for years. Got his 2009 start on TMZ and then metastasized to other sites–including Radar Online–though with the exception of CNN it appears the obscenity filters bar him from posting on most respectable news sites. His posts are pornographic, often half the posts to 500+ comments boards. That’s 250+ comments. On just one story.

        Many of them over a hundred words long. Multiply that by the thousands of stories he’s spammed. I’m sure he’s exceeded a million words inciting hatred toward Michael so far. Even more disturbing is the avatar he uses: a photo of a boy who appears to be a seven-year-old Safechuck. Judging from his comments he is psychotic. This is the kind of person you don’t want to engage with.

        His obsession with Michael is beyond sick. His lack of self-control is frightening. His comments are nonsensical and illiterate, though occasionally he pulls himself together enough to post a rational comment. I’ve often thought that he might also be the hater human nature. Maybe he’s schizophrenic.

        At the very least he is an emotionally challenged terrorist.

        A dangerous person–insane and highly flammable. The kind of person it might be deadly to engage with.

        1. Yes. This was the person whose comments were all deleted from the last RO article. Even though the comments were deleted, there is still a trail revealing who they were from.

  28. The new court document: https://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jackson2901-signed.pdf

    A summary

    It’s the Estate’s request for a demmurrer of Safechuck’s case. It does not contain Safechuck’s lawsuit, but it does refer to some elements of it so we can learn from it:

    – Safechuck alleges MJ molested him between 1988 and 1991.
    – Safechuck admits he learnt about MJ’s death shortly after he died and he was aware of his Estate. (No silly “I had no idea about the administration of the Estate” claim here as in Robson’s claims.)
    – He learnt about Robson’s allegations shortly after May 1, 2013.
    – Safechuck’s lawyer, Maryann Marzano (same as Robson’s lawyer) has been working on Safechuck’s case 8 months before they filed in May, 2014. Which would mean she’s been working on it since September, 2013.
    – He claims he did not testify in 2005 because he was concerned his mother would find out he was sexually abused by MJ. He claims regardless ultimately he told his mother in 2005 that MJ was a “bad man” and that he “had been abused by MJ”.
    – He claims he did not connect various anxiety issues he suffered to the alleged abuse until mid-2013.
    – He claims he became concerned about having pedophilic urges when his son was born and that he was prescribed Xanax during his wife’s pregnancy in 2010.
    – He claims he did not link these anxiety issues to alleged abuse until he saw Robson in 2013 and went into therapy on May 20, 2013, discussing the alleged abuse.

    They have a different strategy as with Robson. Safechuck admits knowing about the Estate since 2009, and does not claim he was unwilling or unable to realize his alleged abuse until shortly before he filed, he does not claim repressed memories etc. He claims though that he did not connect his anxiety issues to his alleged abuse until he went to therapy in May 2013.

    They have no chance with probate court law (having to file 60 days after learning about the Estate or the facts supporting the claim), so they rely on equitable estoppel.

    In short, a Plaintiff is entitled to equitable estoppel (an extension of deadlines to file) if it is because of the conduct of the allaged perpetrator (or in this case his representatives, the Estate) why he could not file within the time limits. To be more clear: courts usually apply this to cases where the alleged perpetrator threatened or intimidated the alleged victim and because of that he or she reasonably was unable to file within the time limits.

    However Safechuck apparently presented a brand new equitable estoppel theory that has never been used in courts before. Estate says they have found no case supporting the application of estoppel the way Safechuck tries to. Equitable estoppel, according to the Estate argument, could only be applied in this case if it was a result of the conduct of the Executors or Beneficiaries, not the Decendent’s (equitable estoppel could have only been used because of the Decendent’s alleged conduct within one year of his death).

    Safechuck claims MJ’s conduct is the reason why he did not connect the alleged harm to the alleged abuse until mid-2013. Apparently the claim is that MJ manipulated him to believe that he was “in love with [MJ] and [MJ] had done nothing wrong” (actually this is a quote from a precedent case, but the document says Safechuck claims the same thing). And Safechuck claims he’s realized the “truth” that he’s been a victim of sexual abuse only after therapy in 2013. (How does it jive with his other claim that he told his mother in 2005? Or that he was concerned about pedophiliac urges in 2010? If he thought it was love until mid-2013 why was he concerned about that?)

    However, argues the Estate, this would be the case of delayed discovery, not equitable estoppel and delayed discovery is irrelevant here, because in case of delayed discovery he should have filed his lawsuit 60 days within acquiring knowledge about the connection between his psychological harms and the alleged abuse, so about July-August, 2013.

    Also:

    “Safechuck spends the majority of legal argument on the contention that the policy considerations behind CCP 340.1 somehow “estop” the Executors from relying on the applicable deadlines.
    The plain language of 340.1., however, confirms that it has no application to these proceedings.”
    Then they cite precedent cases where it’s quiet clearly stated if the creators of a law intended to state something in a law then they would have done so. There is no support in Court practice for interpreting things into laws which aren’t there. At least that’s how I understand this argument.

    Then the Estate asks for the dismissal of Safechuck’s late claim.

    1. He claims he became concerned about having pedophilic urges when his son was born and that he was prescribed Xanax during his wife’s pregnancy in 2010.

      This is a very bizarre claim. It sounds as though Safechuck is trying to throw a smokescreen around his own pedophilic urges. Having to go so far as to take a prescribed medication during his wife’s pregnancy is just weird. So what are we to take from that? Was he concerned about molesting his own son-an infant? So much so that he had to resort to medication?

      1. “Was he concerned about molesting his own son-an infant? So much so that he had to resort to medication?”

        Raven, that is what he seems to be saying. If true, is he being questioned or investigated? I would be very concerned with a statement like that. Does he have access to his child who would only now be 4 or younger. Or perhaps it is just that he has he no scruples about using his own child in his lie in order to get a payout. Either way, what a miserable father he is.

        When he told his mother in 2005, what did she do about it?

        I hope to high heaven that these 2 losers, Robson and Safechuck, are made to pay a high price for what they are trying to do to Michael’s children and his legacy. I would like to see them do prison time for these false claims and put a stop once and for all to these filthy opportunists. It just has to stop.

      2. That is exactly what I was thinking.

        If this is a quote from a court document I have to wonder about the lawyers capability on this case. Pedophilic urges towards his newborn son are very disturbing and he should be more than concerned and not for the reasons he claims.
        A quick scan on pedophilia would have taught him that these urges are symptoms of a serious mental disorder.You do not get ple urges from being abused, if that is what Safechuck or his lawyer is suggesting, but you are born that way. It can be supressed with medication or therapy, but cannot be cured. There are victims of sexual abuse who copy the behavior of their abuser and become abusers themselves. But that is only a small minority. They are often not ples but opportunistic child molesters, one of 4 categories non – pedophile child molesters who are responsible for 5-10 % of these crimes. Pls on the other hand have a chronic sexual longing for children and are responsible for 90 to 95% of child sexual abuse cases. With pedophilic urges towards his own newborn child chances are 90 to 10 that he IS a pedophile.

        1. I think there’s some misunderstanding here. Safechuck doesn’t claim to have pedopholic urges or being a pedophile, he states he’s concerned he MIGHT get such urges.

          1. None on my part. I merely said it was a bizarre claim to make, which it is. The fact that he claims to have gone so far as having to take Xanax during his wife’s pregnancy is what really clinches the “bizarre” factor for me. This would mean that either the urges WERE present, to the degree that he resorted to medication to either reduce them or to reduce the anxiety they caused OR that he was so stressed over this possibility that he had to take a prescription anti-anxiety drug. Either way, it reveals that Safechuck has some serious issues.

          2. Could be I misunderstood. But if you are not a ple there is no need to be concerned to have plic urges. The thought of molesting a baby is sick and strange considering he said he was abused from the age of 10. This is all fabricated on the-pretext that kids who are abused automatically become abusers, which is not true. The doctor who prescribed him the xanax should have explained to him that even for ples molesting a child is a choice.

            Wade and Safechuck take advantage of the fact that there is not a standard reaction to child abuse. So they think they can get away with feigning any and every psychological effect from illogical fears of becoming a baby molester to “ knowing but not realizing” that it was abuse ,even when grilled on the stand( in 2005) in a courtroom where child abuse was discussed in every facet. Anything goes to bolster their belated claim.
            AS for not knowing that there was an MJ estate. There must be correspondence between the executors or their lawyer and Wade or his lawyer for his tribute in the MJ Opus .
            He probably got paid for it too. They must have also exchanged some paperwork when he applied for Cirque . His lawyer – if she still was- was definetely aware of the estate and probably negociated the deal for him. The interesting question is why he didnt get the job, because I do not buy the ‘official” reason.

            Their transparant lies and dragging their children into this mess makes it hard to feel sympathy for them , much less give them the benefit of the doubt.
            Imo that is why they have so little support from the public in general. And because Michael is not here to defend himself.

      3. It seems to me that Gradstein thinks it’s a good idea to drag their children into their story. Both Robson and Safechuck do it and IMO probably for sympathy. Robson did not specifically mention pedophiliac urges but kind of alluded to it. From his declaration:

        “In March 2012, I had my second and final nervous breakdown which again included feelings of extreme stress, anxiety, fear and depression. I would look at my son and imagine him experiencing the sexual acts I did with Doe 1- – which I did not yet equate with being sexually abused – and, for the first time in my life, I wondered if I needed to talk to someone about what Doe 1 and I “did together”. I knew that I truly had no idea how I felt about it.”

        This is disturbing on so many levels, IMO. I mean what kind of thought process is it to imagine sexual acts between your one-and-a-half years old son and an adult man? Why would you imagine such things? And what makes it even more disturbing is that he then says “which I did not yet equate with being sexually abused”. WTF? I mean Robson claims such things as anal rape. He’s been imagining such things happening to his infant son and he did not equate it with sexual abuse? Beyond creepy. Sorry, but no matter what psycho-babble Wade tries to use I will never buy the notion that as an adult man you do not know and cannot figure out that anally raping a child is sexual abuse. Especially with all the circumstances in this case (MJ being accused before etc).

        If I believed their story I’d be seriously concerned for their children and any child that is around them. Thing is I do not believe it. I think for some odd reason this law firm thinks that it’s a good idea to drag their kids into it and to relate their discovery of abuse and/or the discovery of its harm to their kids.

    2. If Jimmy told his mother that Michael was a “bad man” in 2005, what did she do about it? Wouldn’t any sane person have asked for details and gone to the police? There was this rather well-publicized prosecution going on. Jimmy was an adult in 2005. Why was he talking like a five year old? All these parents who ‘knew’ something, and not one came forward. Jimmy and Wade are suing the wrong people.

      As for the Xanax during his wife’s pregnancy, and the “pedophilic urges”, those are two separate effects, but possibly with one cause – onset of bipolar disorder with schizophrenic aspects. Jimmy would have been the age when it usually emerges. Maybe he was panicked because he didn’t have the financial means to support a wife and child. Or maybe it was just another example of Mesereau’s maxim – why work when you can sue Michael Jackson?

  29. @Suzy But didn’t Jimmy Safechuck allege that he was molested 100 times for four years? Now he says that it happened between 1988 and 1991? That’s three years. Something’s not right here. I had a hunch that Jimmy was embellishing his story now he’s just changing it or at least his lawyer is changing it. What say you, Suzy?

  30. Does anyone remember an article that ran when MJs art collection (in the hangar at Santa Monica airport) was made public – either Gradstein or Marzano was interviewed. He or she did an informal assessment of the collection based on some professional experience (I don’t think they actually saw it) and it was after that that his/her name come up in connection with Wade. Or they had assessed the artwork, then took on representation of Wade, both mentioned in the same article.

    At the time there were lots of “I thought MJ was broke but this “secret” collection is valued at $300 – $900M”. I know I read it, discussed the timing w/ friends but now we can’t find it.

    1. I don’t remember to have read such a thing but it’s interesting if there is such a comment by them. I remember though that Robson’s long time entertainment lawyer Helen Yu talked about the worth of the Estate in 2009 and also about visiting an auction with MJ memorabilia, but she visited it before MJ’s death:

      “Yu, who once attended a pre-auction viewing of the possessions of the still living King of Pop, notes the unprecedented earning power of the now deceased Jackson. ‘He was certainly an amazing songwriter, performer and dancer, but he sometimes let the wrong people in. Now that his estate’s advisors are John Branca and John McClain, music industry veterans who know how to monetize the business, unfortunately, he will most likely earn more dead than alive’.”

      http://www.yuleseberg.com/news/worthmoredeadthanalive.php

      Interesting how closely these people followed the financial situation of MJ and his Estate.

      Talking about Gradstein. I just found an interview with him from last August on Blogtalk radio: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/playgroundradio/2013/08/08/henry-gradstein-partner-gradstein-marzano-pc?AID=CJSource&utm_source=CJ&PID=6147167

      In this interview he does not mention Robson or Safechuck, he talks about a $100 million lawsuit he brought against Sirius XM on behalf of The Turtles.

      But he’s clearly a copyright and business lawyer, so he’s a very odd choice of a lawyer for child abuse allegations:

      “An exclusive interveiw with Henry Gradstein, Partner, Gradstein & Marzano P.C., a veteran of numerous high profile entertainment and intellectual property cases. Gradstein is representing The Turtles in their $100 million class action lawsuit against Sirius XM Radio.

      A graduate of U.S.C. Law School where he served on the Law Review, Henry Gradstein is an AV-rated attorney with over 30 years of experience litigating and trying a wide variety of cases, including a top-ten jury verdict in California and numerous other multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. Named by Los Angeles Magazine as a “Super Lawyer” for nine years, he has a proven track record litigating complex matters as lead trial counsel. He has extensive experience in all aspects of entertainment, intellectual property and complex business litigation.”

      1. Thanks,Suzy, for posting this article about Helen Yu; this must be what we remembered. No wonder I couldn’t find it!

        This part: “Helen says, “I’ve known Wade Robson and Charles Klapow since they were both little kids…” made me realize that in addition to teachers, family or friends that the average abuse victim could confide in, Wade had a lawyer who could have kept him away from MJ. I know many victims are afraid/ashamed to speak, but Wade did have an option most don’t.

        As others have pointed out, it makes no sense that this is not being handled by a lawyer specializing in sex-abuse cases, especially child sex-abuse. One of the many red flags that this claim is total B$.

        I wonder if Wade cooked this up on his own, or if someone is pulling his strings? At the least, I wouldn’t be surprised if his therapist planted the idea in his head. Then Wade watches the earnings of MJs estate climb as his own career tanks…

          1. I don’t know anything about Wade’s wife – except I think they were partners in a failed film company – do you?

            Wade’s mom was on the board of that MJ Tribute Portrait. When news of Wade’s allegation broke I tweeted them to remove her name (which they did, saying she was no longer active on the project) but come on, an international tribute to the man who molested your son? She had no clue anything was wrong with her (then) little boy? Hmpf……

        1. I believe the wife is behind it because she is the person most directly affected by Wade’s inability to earn a living. She was around Michael and Neverland just enough to acquire a taste for the wealthy lifestyle. And if Wade ever crosses her or cheats on her, she’ll spill.

  31. I have one question though, Suzy. Jimmy states that he told his mother that Michael abused him back in 2005. Was that before or after the acquittal? And why didn’t his mother say anything then? Why isn’t she backing up Jimmy now?

    1. The document does not say whether it was before, during or after the trial in 2005. And how do you know his mother does not back him up now? If Safechuck makes this claim then his mother probably on board with him in these allegations and she would back him up saying that yes, this happened. Otherwise I don’t think Safechuck would make this claim about telling his mother in 2005.

      1. Apparently Jimmy didn’t pull his cousin into the scheme. Tony Safechuck tweeted about Michael, “my cuz/I were 2 of the kids that used 2 hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened”. This was on October 16, 2013.

        1. Yes, and this was after James already hired Gradstein, so it seems it was a secret project – even within the family. I also find it interesting it took them eight months to put together his case. What took so long?

  32. Sina says, “He (Wade) probably got paid for it too. They must have also exchanged some paperwork when he applied for Cirque . His lawyer – if she still was- was definetely aware of the estate and probably negociated the deal for him. The interesting question is why he didnt get the job, because I do not buy the ‘official” reason.”

    When someone in any field applies for a job and loses out, the official reason is that those doing the hiring found someone more to their liking. No explanation required. Jamie King had years of experience working with Michael. Michael never hired Wade to work on his stage shows in any capacity, because Wade, despite his fangirl following, is quite limited, as a dancer and as a choreographer.

    Wade’s pothead reputation is well-known. Even his most ardent fans recognize that. When Britney Spears instituted a drug testing program for her employees, and his co-choreographer took the test and failed, Wade refused to take it, and walked away from his most lucrative position. (Dinner with the wife that night was probably a chilly affair.) Cirque has strict no drugs policy as well. Maybe Wade tried to pass their test and failed. At any rate, the sense of entitlement he displayed was massive, what with him announcing he was working on the Cirque show before he had a finalized contract. Too bad Wade couldn’t phony up grounds to sue Jamie King, who has beaten him out of several engagements.

    1. Didnt Weizman say that he resigned because of his childs condition?
      If druguse was an issue half of the producers in the entertainment business would never get a job.
      He didnt work with Michael but he proably convinced the executors that he was still close with Michael or would work with him. Hence the honour of a place in the opus.

      1. Cirque shows tend to be dangerous – with all their safeguards, a Cirque performer was killed recently – so druggies are not welcome in that working environment. Britney Spears’ team decided to go with a zero tolerance policy, probably in an attempt to help keep her safe and in recovery. Whatever reason Wade gave for not being able to complete any project, I’m sure it made sense to him at the time. The artistic and financial failure of the Criss Angel show Believe, which Wade choreographed, might have started him on his downward spiral.

    2. The last tear has written an excellent blog on the connection between Chandler/Robson – the parallels between their fathers and mental illness. http://nonlocaluniverse.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/hollywood-tonight-1/ Please excuse if it has already been discussed here. Am willing to consider the possibility of Wade’s mental dysfunction being the fuel to this case, however can see it in a whole different light too. AS mentioned -We’ve seen the 2011 interview youtube where Wade very clearly states he IS working on a Circe show, much like the Beatle LOVE in Vegas… which can only be MJONE … He states matter of factly that he is both honored and a bit terrified of having the responsibility of presenting Michael as he was the greatest and goes further to speak of how personal it is.. i don’t believe for one minute he was speaking out of turn.. I do believe he WAS hired tentatively by the MJEstate and he was so excited he had to tell someone..before the ink was dry, so to speak. Only problem being his hiring was only going to be confirmed upon passing DRUG TESTING, results that would show him to be clean. This is a common occurence when hiring, as both my son and hubby were both required to pass drug test before final hiring went through in their respective jobs. Rumors have abounded that he lost many industry jobs due to his drug use .. It would make perfect sense to me that he did NOT pass and MJEstate considered that a breach of the agreed contract terms and cut him loose. Timeline fits for his first “mental breakdown” i can imagine him having a major meltdown after giving that interview and then months later Jamie King is hired in his stead. Especially after reading what his cousin said about being “prideful” OH YES, especially since Jamie King also took his place after he was let go from Britney Spears tour. Greed, envy and revenge are three very powerful forces of evil… I believe Wade displays the Trifacta- Evil .. yep.. pure evil.

  33. Raven, a couple of days ago I forced myself to read the latest entry on mjfacts about Safechuck. It is said to be written by a contributor to the blog – DSSL, which naturally stands for “Desiree”.
    But the point that drew my attention is that some commenter thanked the author for the “great work” and added to it “Great work, Mike”. Could it be Mike Par? As either the admin of mjfacts site or the so-called “Desiree”?
    Whatever it is, this comment makes it clear that Michael’s haters know each other personally, associate with each other and know who is standing behind which blog.
    Michael’s defenders also more or less know each other but our difference is that we do not hide our identities and don’t pretend to be anyone different from what we actually are. No males pretending to be females, no hiding under proxies, etc.
    Here is a screenshot from the comments on the latest story from mjfacts about Safechuck where the author is addressed as Mike: http://ipic.su/fIJ6.jpg
    Not that it matters much but I thought that this small detail belongs in the discussion of your post. Michael Jackson’s professional haters (I agree with the term) not only suppress the facts of his innocence and thus distort the whole picture, but they also distort information about themselves. Lies and half-lies, biased sources, cherry-picking stories that suit their theory only, hiding of the truth – all this seems to be a specific trademark of their whole business. And when they call themselves “neutral” it is the biggest lies of it all. They are Michael Jackson’s haters all right who work hard and do a professional job of smearing his name.
    Thank you for your never-ending efforts to defend the innocence truth about MJ and make it known to the public.
    Regards,
    Helena

    1. Mike Par is “allysforwaderobson” and is the founder of the Wade Robson support group. It looks like he’s merely signing his name to the comment since, naturally, everyone there already knows who “allysforwaderobson” is. But yes, absolutely, they all know each other and have one another’s backs. They are in reality a very small group, but just as a cat arches its back to look bigger and threaten a perceived enemy, they are experts at making themselves “look” bigger, more numerous and more threatening than they actually are. What IS scary is the sheer amount of time, energy, and dedication they put into this purpose. A lot of people think that Michael “may or may not have” been guilty, but to put this kind of time, energy and devotion into attempting to “prove” it smacks of pure, evil desperation. And most of the dirty work IS being generated from Australia and the UK (though both Mike Par and Desiree claim to be Americans; judging from Par’s videos-if that is indeed him-he doesn’t have an accent, but nevertheless, he is getting a LOT of help from out of Australia). A commentor on the WR Facebook page recently referred to you as “Hater Helena” which gives away that they were behind all of those fake “Vindicating Michael” blogs that were popping up. Again, to have that kind of time and energy is tantamount to an obsession-a sick one, not to mention just plain mean-spirited and nasty. I don’t necessarily have an issue with anyone who wants to run an MJ hater site (I don’t understand the reasoning of it, but it’s their right under free speech); however, once they resort to underhanded and illegal tactics and deception, that’s crossing a line.

      1. Thank you, Raven, by now I’ve also found out that this “allysforwaderobson” stands for Mike Parziale, a supporter of Robson on FB. To be frank I very rarely read his FB page – it is MJ’s haters who follow us but I myself have an aversion for following every twist of their vile logic (though sometimes we probably need to), especially since now I have very little time for the job due to various circumstances.

        As to the subject of your post and the Australian connection of the mjfacts site I’ve noticed that their articles fall into two parts in respect of SPELLING. The first articles posted there were written by Americans which initially made me think that it was Ray Chandler’s site. However then the spelling changed and the later entries were made in British English (or Australian one as readers explained to me that Australian spelling is the same as British).

        Actually it doesn’t matter much who is behind the blog. What was really important for me was to rule out a possibility that the site is run by Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted pedophile who is known to be crazily stuck on MJ issues and whose spelling is decidedly British. He is a prolific writer and he still puts his nose into everything positive which has ever been written about Michael Jackson.

        In 2012 I wrote the following comment about him and mjsfacts site (let me repeat it here as it can make a few things clearer in respect of this company of MJ haters):

        Tomas O’Carroll’s biography on the site of William Percy had several links to Amazon.com where he left his reviews to practically every book which is favorable to MJ. Here are some quotes from his comment on Aphrodite Jones’ book, please pay attention to the two words in bold type:
        – Aphrodite Jones competently tells the story of how Michael’s brilliant top lawyer, Tom“mesmerising” Mesereau, exposed this dishonesty.
        – Jones persists in smearing Evan by referring to his “criminal defence“.
        Defence and mesmerising are British English and are equivalent to defense and mesmerizing in American English.
        And now look at the mjfacts site – some quotes from it:
        – He rightly calls the defence tactic a “fishing expedition”;
        – That the defence fought…
        – defence attorney Tom Mesereau…
        – Jones then goes on to do exactly as Jackson’s defence did
        – Of particular note is the fact that the defence fought..
        Words like “criticize”, “realize”, “normalize” are also written in British spelling with “s”:
        – you will realise why Michael Jackson
        – I can’t criticise people like that
        – It needs to be explained, excused, normalised, justified.
        Or the word “behavior” written in British spelling again – with “u”:
        – testified to the Arvizo’s behaviour – food fights, rowdy behaviour and rudeness
        So the latest texts in the mjfacts site were written by a British, though the earlier ones which we thought to belong to Ray or Evan Chandler were written by an American. This makes the mjfacts site an effort of a British person who used some American texts.
        Some phrases also betray the desire of the author to erase all British English elements from his texts. For example, in the sentence below he changed the spelling of one word but didn’t change the spelling of the other word:
        – the motion filed by the defense on January 18, 2005. Upon reading the motion, you will notice that the defence were eager to..
        But if you compare his site with that of Desiree there will be a decided difference. D.’s spelling is American – “behavior”, “rumor”, “defense”:
        – behavior with boys
        – his own family’s behavior toward Michael Jackson
        – was filed proactively by the Defense
        – the defense stepped in and filed the motion
        – gay rumors that had dogged him his entire career
        – the rumors Michael Jackson had to face
        So there can’t be any doubt that one person is American and the other is British (or Australian as their spelling is the same).
        https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/fake-vindicatemj-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-32451

  34. I have a question about Frank Cascio’s book. Does it lie about the timeline about MJ and the arvizos in Neverland?

    -Thank you for your time.

Leave a Reply