Was Michael Jackson a Pedophile? by Michael Bailey | July 1St 2009 12:11 PM | 210 Comments | Print | E-Mail

Home , Brett Ratner, Jackson family, Maureen Orth, Thomas Mesereau

J. Michael Bailey

MORE ARTICLES • Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? • Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? • Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In “The Man Who Would Be Queen”

All Articles

ABOUT MICHAEL

I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and

related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity...

View Michael's Profile

Michael Bailey Search This Blog

The predictably massive postmortem analysis of Michael Jackson has focused on both his

enormous talent and his spectacular strangeness. Although there is lively debate whether

Jackson or Elvis Presley is the all time King of Pop, there is no question which of them is the

King of Weird.

Elvis Presley had his quirks—secret meetings with Nixon, shooting at television sets, and of

course, drug abuse. But these did not compare with Michael Jackson's bizarre physical

appearance, abetted by untold plastic surgeries; child-like speech; enjoyment in sleeping

with (and perhaps "sleeping with") boys; obsession with Peter Pan; and of course, drug

abuse.

Jackson's weirdness, unlike Presley's, was publicized for years before his death. So it is

disappointing to read the banal psychological interpretations of his behavior. The most

common thread is that Jackson's cruel and ambitious father robbed Michael of his childhood. Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote, back in 2005: "Almost everything that seems freakish about him can be explained by his poignant, doomed effort to get his stolen childhood back."

Really? How many musicians, athletes, and actors have had overbearing parents who made their childhoods miserable? How many of these resemble Jackson in any way whatsoever: the freakish surgically altered face, the affected voice, Neverland, llamas and chimps, and sleeping with pubescent boys?

A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation. Furthermore, Jackson's weirdness was so multifaceted that it presents both a challenge and an opportunity. An hypothesis that explains only one unusual fact is not so useful. One that can explain several is much more so.

I propose an explanation of Michael Jackson that, if true, can explain several seemingly unrelated things: the molestation accusations and interest in children, the obsession with

Peter Pan, and the facial surgeries. I think that Michael Jackson had an erotic identity disorder.

What was Michael Jackson's sexual orientation? He was married twice to women and may or may not have fathered three children. Still, his sexuality was the subject of considerable speculation. I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay.

Other people must have had the same impression because his mother protested around that time: "Michael isn't gay. It's against his religion. It's against God. The Bible speaks against it." I wasn't convinced. In a recent story printed in the British press, a reporter claimed to have met two of Michael's gay lovers.

Now, even if these reports are true, I don't think that Michael Jackson was gay—although my reasons are different than his mother's. To be sure, some gay men marry women, and there are surely many famous heterosexually married performers whose private sexuality is homosexual. But in important ways, gay men do not behave like Michael Jackson did. They do not get elaborate facial surgery that makes them look freakish, for example. They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces.

When I thought Jackson was gay, it was because of his unusual manner of speech. Since then, I've studied gay speech and learned that I was wrong. Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men, Jackson didn't have it. And gay men don't raise the pitch of their voice the way that Jackson did.

Nor do gay men seek the company of pubescent boys, especially to share their beds with.

As everyone knows, Michael Jackson was twice legally accused of sexually interacting with boys. The first boy was 12 when the alleged molestation began in 1992. The second was 13 when the alleged abuse occurred in 2003. (A third accusation, involving a somewhat younger boy, was settled out of court for $2 million in 1996.) I do not know anything more about these incidents than is available in the public record. Unsurprisingly, Michael Jackson denied committing any offense. He was never put on trial for the first accusation and was found not guilty of the second. I have no reason to question that verdict, but keep in mind that criminal convictions require certainty "beyond reasonable doubt."

There is certainly a reasonable doubt about Jackson's guilt, at least in my mind.

Still, if I had to bet on what is most likely, I would bet that he did molest a boy, at least the one from 1992. In that case, the criminal charges were dropped, and Jackson settled with the boy's family, reportedly for $20 million. Jackson insisted that he wanted to pursue the matter in court but that the insurance company made him settle. (With unintended irony, he later said: "I didn't want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like O.J. and all that stupid stuff.") The idea that an insurance company forced him to settle a nuisance claim for millions of dollars seems unlikely, both to me and to the lawyers I consulted. To be sure, there was also evidence in both cases that the families were financially motivated. But with

Jackson's financial assets supporting the best lawyers and publicists, it is unsurprising that his team managed to raise significant doubts.

Though inconclusive, the repeated molestation charges and rumors were worrisome. And even Michael Jackson admitted that he loved to sleep in the same bed as children. (It seems that he preferred boys to girls.) That's what precipitated the criminal investigation in 2005.

Neither several accusations of sexual abuse of boys nor his admission that he loved sharing his bed with boys necessarily meant that Jackson was sexually attracted to boys. But it is a reasonable hypothesis—arguably, the most reasonable hypothesis—that he was.

So for now, let's assume that Michael Jackson was sexually attracted to the boys he was accused of molesting. What was his sexual orientation? Jackson was sometimes accused of being a pedophile. "Pedophilia" refers to the sexual preference for children who have not yet entered puberty. The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles.

Jackson's alleged victims were in an age range intermediate between biological children

(who have not entered puberty) and sexually mature individuals (who are well into, or beyond, puberty). Although we can't know for sure, without a medical exam from the time of the alleged abuse, it seems most likely that Jackson's alleged victims were pubescent, meaning that they were in the early stages of puberty. Such children have some pubic hair development, and some breast budding if they are girls, but are otherwise quite physically immature. I have seen pictures of naked pubescent children. (They are used by Canadian scientists to assess sexual preferences in sex offenders and are legal for that use there.) I believe that most normal men would find those images to be strange looking and much less appealing than images of more sexually mature women.

The word for sexual attraction to pubescent children is "hebephilia" (pronounced

"heebuhfeelia"). Hebephilia appears to be a distinct sexual orientation from pedophilia, and it is somewhat more common. If the rumors and accusations are true, then Jackson appears to have preferred pubescent boys, and so would have been a homosexual hebephile. Homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles are not gay. Gay men are sexually attracted to physically mature men and are no more aroused by male children than straight men are by female children. Furthermore, unlike gay men, homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles did not tend to start out as feminine boys. (As far as we can tell, all hebephiles and pedophiles are men. The rare woman who molests children is more likely to have a mental illness than a stable sexual preference for children.)

Some hebephiles have some flexibility in their sexuality. Sometimes they are attracted to children below their ideal age. Sometimes they are attracted to adults above their ideal age.

But their ideal partner's age is still 11-14, and their ideal partner's body is pubescent.

Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality. Also like normal sexualities, they are not just sexual. Not only do straight men have sex with women, they also fall in love with them, court them, bond with them, and sleep in the same bed with them, often without anything overtly sexual occurring.

There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children.

To reiterate, I do not know if Michael Jackson molested any boys. But I think he might have, and if he did, he was probably a homosexual hebephile. If he was, it can help explain other aspects of his strange persona. Before I say how, I need to take another sexual detour, this one an inversion.

Pedophilia and hebephilia are specific examples of a general class of sexual disorders calledparaphilias. Other paraphilias include sexual masochism and sadism, exhibitionism, zoophilia (sexual attraction to nonhuman animals), and fetishism (sexual excitement for nonhuman objects). No one knows what causes paraphilias, although I strongly suspect that they are inborn errors of brain development. For some reason, paraphilias occur almost exclusively in men, and not uncommonly, they co-occur in the same person. One paraphilia that may be relevant, in a general way, to understanding Michael Jackson isautogynephilia. Men with autogynephilia are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as women. Thus the name: auto (self) gyne (woman) philia (love). Males with autogynephilia most often discover during puberty that it turns them on to dress in women's clothing, especially lingerie.

They go through a stage where cross dressing in private is intensely sexual. Some men with autogynephilia have sexual fantasies about having female genitalia, and many of these men acquire them. Autogynephilia is probably the most common motivation in the United States for sex reassignment surgery among males becoming female.

Autogynephilia is a special kind of paraphilia because it represents an inversion of the desired object inside the self. Autogynephilic men are like straight men—they love women— except that the woman an autogynephile loves most is the woman he creates inside himself.

I know, I know, this is a strange and difficult concept. It might help to provide an additional example. The most extreme autogynephile I have ever known did not only cross dress but would at some other times would glue (yes glue!) fake vulvas over his penis, wear fake breasts, and film himself (as a pseudo-woman) engaging in pornographic acts with a male dummy. This was highly erotic to him. This person eventually got surgery and is now living as a woman.

Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually.

I refer to paraphilias such as autogynephilia as "erotic identity disorders." Autogynephilia isn't the only erotic identity disorder, but it is the most common one. This is because heterosexuality is the most common sexual orientation. So if an inversion error happens, it is most likely to happen in an otherwise heterosexual man. Most autogynephiles retain some ability to be attracted to real women, that is, women who live outside themselves. In erotic identity disorders, the kind of person a man desires to become is identical to the kind of

real, external person he is most attracted to.

A much rarer erotic identity disorder is the sexually-motivated desire to become an

amputee. A subset of men are erotically driven to have particular limbs amputated (usually,

but not always, one of their legs). These men often admit sexual fantasies about being

amputees, and tellingly, they are usually very attracted to amputees—just as

autogynephiles (who want to be women) are usually very attracted to women. This erotic

identity disorder (technical name: apotemnophilia) is much rarer than autogynephilia,

presumably because attraction to amputees is much rarer than attraction to women.

Apotemnophilia is an erotic identity disorder because sexual desire for amputees has been

inverted to the self, causing a sexual desire for oneself as an amputee.

Michael Jackson probably did not have autogynephilia, and he certainly did not have

apotemnophilia, but he may have had something similar, another erotic identity disorder.

And we'll discuss that in part 2.

RELATED ARTICLES ON SCIENCE 2.0 • Michael Jackson Finally Gets His Own Computer Virus • Who Is King? Michael Jackson Vs Sir Isaac Newton • Michael Jackson: Erotic Identity Disorder? • Michael Jackson - Freakishness Explained? • Michael Jackson: The Castrato? Comparing Jackson to a great singer of the past who was.

COMMENTS The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles...

Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality...

Feel free to call me narrow minded, but the effects of pedophilia and hebephilia on victims is dramatic and enduring. A homosexual orientation is typically not significantly damaging either emotionally or psychologically to consenting adults, but therein lies the problem - consent.

At what age do you feel a child can make a quality decision concerning his or her sexuality? These days, with adolescence extending well into the 20s, it would seem that individuals under the age of majority as defined by law, are ill-prepared to make such a determination.

And excuse me once more, but many of my clients would strongly disagree with you that pedophilia (which I do use broadly to encompass hebephilia) is merely a sexual orientation. The devastating permanence and pervasiveness of childhood sexual assaults cannot be disregarded or justified.

One sex offender that I was acquainted with tried to defend the sexualization of his then 5 year old daughter by saying that until social services got to her, she considered his molestations to be normal. The implication was clear - that incest and pedophilia are ok, and individuals should be left alone to practice both freely. It would have been interesting to observe his daughter's initial reactions, for I will bet she did not feel their relationship was legitimate.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 14:55 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I'm not quite sure what it is about Professor Bailey's post that causes you to believe that he disagrees with you. I'm sure he would agree that pedophilia and hebephilia have significant adverse effects on children and that children should not legally have the right to consent to sex. He labels them paraphilias, for God's sake. The statement that pedophilia and hebephilia are sexual orientations like other more normal sexual orientations does not imply that hebephilia or pedophilia are themselves normal sexual orientations, quite the opposite. I'm sure that Professor Bailey is just as troubled by child molestation as you are.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 15:44 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I'm not quite sure what it is about Professor Bailey's post that causes you to believe that he disagrees with you...He labels them paraphilias, for God's sake.

There are paraphilias, and then there are paraphilias. For example, having a fetish for say rubber clothing does not necessarily mean anyone is going to get hurt. A physical act of pedophilia does involve injury to another.

Prof. Bailey states that "hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality". Perhaps this was badly worded, but as it stands, hebephilia and pedophilia are equated with hetero and homosexuality, thus lending social legitimacy to both practices.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 16:00 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Hebephilia, pedophilia, heterosexuality and homosexuality are also all english words, but that doesn't equate them or lend social legitimacy to any of them. Of course they are all sexual orientations. Hebephilia is sexual attraction to pubescent kids. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent kids. Homosexuality is sexual attraction same sex partners. Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to opposite sex partners. All of this is noncontroversial and beyond dispute. The point of the post was not to make a moral statement about any sexual orientation but rather to make a statement about Michael Jackson's sexual orientation. I'm sure Professor Bailey agrees that homosexuality and heterosexuality are "good" sexual orientations because they don't harm anyone, and hebephilia and pedophilia are "bad" sexual orientations because they harm kids. Nothing in his post is inconsistent with any of that. Am I missing something? Do you disagree?

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 16:35 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

I'm sure Professor Bailey agrees... Unless you are Prof. Bailey, I would think it risky to claim this. Nothing in his post is inconsistent with any of that. Am I missing something? Do you disagree?

I disagree based on the following excerpts, which raise many red flags in my mind: A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation.

Why? Although I feel empathy for Michael Jackson, he was after all just another person with problems. An ordinary diagnosis will do just fine. Nor do gay men seek the company of pubescent boys, especially to share their beds with.

A dangerous assumption, for some do (reference NAMBLA). The word "pedophilia" is used too imprecisely these days, sometimes to refer even to teachers who have sex with their 16 years old students. That is an incorrect usage, because 16 years old students are usually sexually mature. Those teachers have bad judgment but are not pedophiles.

At young ages, a few years of maturity has a huge effect on the ability to participate in social interactions. A 16 year old student is in a highly vulnerable position, the teacher in a position of authority and trust. A student actively producing sperm or releasing eggs, referred to as "sexual maturity" by Prof. Bailey, does not represent a magical point where sexual relationships can begin with adults, but rather represents the start of a prolonged journey towards adulthood. The student is not an adult at this age. The teacher is an adult and has violated not only social convention, but also his or her ethical position of authority and trust. That"bad judgment" was exercised is an understatement. Some hebephiles have some flexibility in their sexuality. Sometimes they are attracted to children below their ideal age. Sometimes they are attracted to adults above their ideal age.But their ideal partner's age is still 11-14, and their ideal partner's body is pubescent.

Prof. Bailey attempts to make a significant distinction between pedophiles and hebephiles, and then use the less familiar (and less emotionally charged) word to describe adults victimizing 11-14 year old children, possibly to destigmatize the activity. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children.

This is an unsubstantiated claim at best. According to the SOs I've encountered, none have expressed a deep, adult-like love and affection for their victims. Rather, the opposite was true, and the child was simply"in the wrong place at the wrong time", as one SO put it.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 17:53 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you saying that you believe something in Professor Bailey's post suggests that he believes that adults having sex with pubescent or prepubescent children is morally justifiable? If so, that takes a lot of reading (misreading?) between the lines. I suppose we can just ask him. Professor Bailey, if you are reading this, do you believe that adults having sex with pubescent or prepubescent children is morally justifiable? Yes or no will do.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 20:30 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

This is a bit of a gray area to me, although I understand the argument. As I'm sure you're aware, while this tends to be a viewpoint that many people share, my concern stems from the fact that it doesn't seem to be applied with equal certainty when the teen-ager is male. In addition, more importantly, this clearly goes completely against the idea of trying teen-agers as adults for crimes.

After all, if a teen-ager can be held accountable for an act of violence, it is a difficult argument to suggest that they aren't equally mature to determine their sexual behavior. If a 16-year old can't make a quality decision, how would we try them for a crime like rape? Is it strictly the violence, the sexual element ... ?

In addition, we have the problem that many teen-agers at this age are themselves engaged in sexual activity amongst their peers. Once again, the problem is that if they lack the ability to make such decisions, then isn't the problem THEIR behavior, and is it really controllable? In many ways this is no different than the poor quality decisions people (especially teenagers) make with alcohol, drugs, etc. There is little doubt that all of these have the potential to wreak havoc on someone's life. However, poor choices or not, isn't it possible that there isn't anyone to blame except themselves. Often, I suspect that older adults make for easy targets because their behavior is on the fringes, but, even if the consent is of poor quality, I'm not sure that criminalizing it solves anything.

I can agree that I don't think that it is appropriate for a 30+ year old to be sexually active with a teen-ager, but ultimately that's my opinion. I'm not sure that the "quality" of a decision is a necessary consideration to criminalize an activity.

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 17:18 PM • Reply to This »

• Link This is a bit of a gray area to me, although I understand the argument. As I'm sure you're aware, while this tends to be a viewpoint that many people share, my concern stems from the fact that it doesn't seem to be applied with equal certainty when the teen-ager is male. In addition, more importantly, this clearly goes completely against the idea of trying teen-agers as adults for crimes.

I too am amazed and dismayed at the treatment of juveniles within our judicial system. Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case. In addition, we have the problem that many teen-agers at this age are themselves engaged in sexual activity amongst their peers.

Experimentation between peers is in my mind completely different than sexual victimization by an adult. It is not the activity, but the intent behind the activity. The adult is secretive about his or her conquest (and passes that secrecy plus shame to the child), while the teenager revels in the ability to "score" with one of the pretty cheerleaders. I have never heard of a teenager or child boast about sexual activity with the old man next door.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 18:09 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case.

This gets back to my other comment, which is that whether they are adults or not, they are operating in a world where they may commit "adult" acts and have to reap the consequences. There is no doubt that there are some evil teenagers, just as there are adults and I certainly wouldn't want to see them handled with leniency just because they're "immature". In many ways, society has become too protective of children and young adults and consequently has empowered them to exploit their age to legal advantage. The most obvious problem is that the courts are ill-prepared to truly evaluate and assess anything on a case-by-case basis. These things can be complicated enough without the restrictions of the legal system in providing the information necessary to truly come to an understanding of the individuals involved.

In the end, whether we like it or not, I don't believe these are problems that society or the law can solve. It comes back to how tuned-in the parents are to their kids behavior.

The adult is secretive about his or her conquest (and passes that secrecy plus shame to the child), while the teenager revels in the ability to "score" with one of the pretty cheerleaders.

That may be true in some situations, but in the eyes of the law a 19-year old and a 15-year are committing a crime. I don't believe the 19-year old can legitimately be considered an "older adult" (this is based on the law generally considering a three-year window to be considered peers). Often the accusation of statutory rape is leveled by a parent that simply wants to control a daughter from dating an older teen-ager. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it is stretching the boundaries to which the law can legitimately be applied. In this kind of situations, there is little doubt that the secrecy may be a result of parental prohibition, rather than the fact that either party views their activities as wrongful.

What I find the most disturbing, is that the focus invariably seems to be on the trauma associated with taking advantage of young women. Of far greater concern to me, is the young men that having been unwittingly pushed into fatherhood and the attendant responsibility that entails, and the courts have barely batted an eye at the offender (to add insult to injury several cases determined that the teenage boy owed child support -http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm )

In general, this whole area is far too emotionally charged with too many parties willing to charge in with half- baked notions about how to solve these problems. This is something that requires eliminating the moral issues and emotions and try and determine whether anything can reasonably be done and to what extent. Except in the cases of force and/or coercion, it may be that people have to live with their bad choices.

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 18:44 PM • Reply to This »

• Link This gets back to my other comment, which is that whether they are adults or not, they are operating in a world where they may commit "adult" acts and have to reap the consequences. There is no doubt that there are some evil teenagers, just as there are adults and I certainly wouldn't want to see them handled with leniency just because they're "immature".

In many ways, society has become too protective of children and young adults and consequently has empowered them to exploit their age to legal advantage. The most obvious problem is that the courts are ill-prepared to truly evaluate and assess anything on a case-by-case basis.

Which is why I stated that each case should be handled individually. It is unacceptable for us as a society to sit back and bemoan the state of our judicial system, but do nothing. In particular a good deal of responsibility should fall within my profession, for we do have the ear of judges from time to time and are in a position to educate as well as perform required evaluations.

But you are quite correct that personal responsibility has apparently fallen out of vogue. That may be true in some situations, but in the eyes of the law a 19-year old and a 15-year are committing a crime. I don't believe the 19-year old can legitimately be considered an "older adult" (this is based on the law generally considering a three-year window to be considered peers). Often the accusation of statutory rape is leveled by a parent that simply wants to control a daughter from dating an older teen-ager. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I think it is stretching the boundaries to which the law can legitimately be applied. In this kind of situations, there is little doubt that the secrecy may be a result of parental prohibition, rather than the fact that either party views their activities as wrongful.

Do you recall how it felt to be those ages? I do to some extent and remember that there was a significant difference in the maturity levels of a sophomore in high school, and the person who had been out of high school for a couple of years. Even back in my high school days, there were parents who would place restraining orders on the older teenager, typically after talking over the situation with police officers. Still, a few younger teens ran off with their older lovers - and get married. Usually they were back home within a few weeks after running out of money. What I find the most disturbing, is that the focus invariably seems to be on the trauma associated with taking advantage of young women. Of far greater concern to me, is the young men that having been unwittingly pushed into fatherhood and the attendant responsibility that entails, and the courts have barely batted an eye at the offender (to add insult to injury several cases determined that the teenage boy owed child support). Perhaps being in the field gives me a different perspective, because in general it is the boys who have been molested that receive the most attention and intensive care. Girls appear to be a bit more resilient, possibly because we have targeted them educationally for longer.

While I do not disagree that there are injustices, maybe dads (or other caring male relatives) could take a more pro-active role and explain to their sons that sex without protection just invites disaster. Nevertheless, as you pointed out earlier in your post, there are consequences to our actions. This is something that requires eliminating the moral issues and emotions and try and determine whether anything can reasonably be done and to what extent.

Here I do disagree - morality, ethics, and a teenager's role in society need to emphasized, not abandoned. If the teen is seen as an integral part of the community and has certain responsibilities and obligations that lead naturally to adult responsibilities, then we may have the beginnings of a workable plan.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 22:20 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the morality and emotions of those that want to place their own values on the situation instead of considering the reality of solutions that might work. In other words, I don't think there's any benefit in people advancing their own agendas and trying to "wish" the world a certain way. It's like the abstinence programs .... perhaps it's a reasonable idea, but what's the backup plan? In those cases, my concern is that people are attempting to foist their own beliefs on individuals rather than determining what is needed and what may actually work.

Gerhard Adam | 07/01/09 | 22:41 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It's like the abstinence programs .... perhaps it's a reasonable idea, but what's the backup plan? In those cases, my concern is that people are attempting to foist their own beliefs on individuals rather than determining what is needed and what may actually work.

Indeed! :) Thank you for a lively and considered debate!

Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 00:05 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I too am amazed and dismayed at the treatment of juveniles within our judicial system. Perhaps the best solution is to bear in mind that while these individuals may have the exterior appearance of adults, inside they may be little more than children and are deserving of societal protection and special provision as determined by each individual case.

Are you serious? You are certainly right that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but I must say, I am rather as amazed and dismayed as you are...conversely. I think it's appalling how few teenagers get tired as adults and literally get away with (less punishment than they should for) murder, rape, assault, etc. While it's true that teenagers often have bad judgment, it is also true that most are perfectly capable of understanding the repercussions of their actions and SHOULD know that these things are morally reprehensible. I anticipate that some people will assume I am overestimating teenagers; however, that has been my opinion since I realized that it was an issue, somewhere around the age of eleven or twelve. It saddens me to think that so many teenagers commit crimes, fully aware of their actions, and are tried as juveniles because adults underestimate them and their capacity to understand consequences. It is one of many flaws in our justice system (by which I mean the United States, though from my understanding other countries have similar problems; I cannot speak for them, though).

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 00:00 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I anticipate that some people will assume I am overestimating teenagers; however, that has been my opinion since I realized that it was an issue, somewhere around the age of eleven or twelve. It saddens me to think that so many teenagers commit crimes, fully aware of their actions, and are tried as juveniles because adults underestimate them and their capacity to understand consequences. It is one of many flaws in our justice system (by which I mean the United States, though from my understanding other countries have similar problems; I cannot speak for them, though).

This problem will not go away easily or quickly, for it has been decades in the making.

The Great Depression, the advent of television and its ability to disseminate permissive ideas and concepts coupled with the relative naïveté of audiences, and WWII all contributed to the way Boomers were raised.

In short, because our parents had it so rough we were spoiled rotten, coddled, and otherwise made to feel we weren't responsible for anything. Many of the children that Boomers raised are now even worse.

So what shall we do to correct this situation? My feeling is that re-education and re-introduction to personal responsibility must be done in the same way that the original permissive ideas were presented - with repetition and over time. It's not going to be a quick fix, however with the economy crashing the process may proceed more rapidly than I expect.

Already families are having to move back in with each other, with everyone working and contributing to household income. Neighborhoods are beginning to pull together. Hard lessons about responsibility and obligation are being learned.

This is why I advocate the evaluation of each juvenile offender individually. Social change is happening, and we will get back to some good fundamental values, but I'm not eager to throw away a generation of offenders because we (Boomers) didn't do our jobs. If a bit of special consideration and training can salvage these individuals, then let's do it.

Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 10:42 AM • Reply to This »

• Link One big problem in the use of the word paraphilia is that it is ill defined. The way it has been used in psychology has changed as various sexualities moved from taboo to socially acceptable. So I see what he is trying to do in calling these "sexual orientations" rather than paraphilia's.

I have more to say but I'll say it after reading part two.

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/01/09 | 18:24 PM • Reply to This »

• Link First off, I can't believe this guy is a professor and of psychology no less. Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll, Michael the King of Pop. To say "I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay." is utterly dumbfounding to me, especially from a professor of psychology. Or this "They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces. " As a gay man I take offense at his generalizations. Different strokes for different folks. Some gay men find effeminant men attractive. "Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men" Oh really? Do tell. Is it the lisp perhaps. Do limp wrists also accompany this gay accent? Those are enough examples for me to totally think this guy is a quack or a professor at some conservative religious college. Me thinks he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality. He sounds like he got his education back in the 50's. Oooo, I am so angry right now. I'd slap him if he were in the room with me but he looks gay so I glad he's not.

David D (not verified) | 07/01/09 | 18:55 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

As a gay man I take offense at his generalizations. Different strokes for different folks. Some gay men find effeminant men attractive. "Although there is a gay accent prevalent in many gay American men" Oh really? Do tell. Is it the lisp perhaps. Do limp wrists also accompany this gay accent? Those are enough examples for me to totally think this guy is a quack or a professor at some conservative religious college. Me thinks he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality. He sounds like he got his education back in the 50's. Oooo, I am so angry right now. I'd slap him if he were in the room with me but he looks gay so I glad he's not.

Great post with good points! :) BTW, if the professor is from the same Northwestern University in Evanston, IL that I am acquainted with, it is one of the more liberal campuses around.

Laura Hult | 07/01/09 | 22:26 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Professor Bailey is one of the most well published researchers on human sexuality in the field of psychology. He is also tenured in one of the most respected psychology departments in the country. You say he needs to take a refresher course on human sexuality? He literally wrote the book.

When Bailey makes generalizations like "They try to maximize their desirability to other gay men, and gay men enjoy conventionally handsome and masculine faces" he is doing so based on his own research into the topic. Yes, it is controversial because many would prefer that stereotypes not be found in scientific research. Nevertheless (either because of socialization or some sort of stereotype threat interaction) these findings are accurate and it would be a disservice to pretend they don't exist. Remember that psychology operates in averages and generalizations. Last time I checked, Dr. Bailey had never published anything that said "David D. and all of his friends speak with the stereotypical homosexual accent".

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 10:31 AM • Reply to This »

• Link He spins out quite a lot, yes.

Yet much of it doesn't pass common sense tests.

It's mind-boggling how people seem to take his personal 'theories' as some sort of gospel.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 16:42 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I wouldn't say anyone is taking his theory on MJ as gospel really. In a sense in saying that Michael had some sexual issues Bailey is only saying what people already think. Afterall MJ was accused of child molestation, twice. He settled civil suits out of court, twice. I'm not saying MJ did anything...but allot of people think he did , or that he was sexually strange in some other way.

As for TMWWBQ and the theory in that book. It's not "his personal theory", and no one takes any theory as gospel. (I guess the HBS notion is taken as gospel but that's more of a wishful thought than a theory that could be objectively tested.)

One more thing. It is most interesting that in this discussion one see's non transsexual admitted autogynephile who is offended by the notion that transsexual autogynephiles exist, and transsexuals who are offended (more understandably) by the notion of autogynephilia. :-/

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/02/09 | 17:20 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

He doesn't even use the term theory. He has a speculation, maybe a hypothesis, but first he wanted to address what everyone in the media was dancing around; was Jackson a pedophile? His answer was no but he did believe Jackson had a disorder.

Science often speculates on things we can't prove but can converge on an answer about. This is certainly one of them but it's a discussion topic. Too many people go nuts because they think very item under discussion is a personal attack on their existence or lifestyle. It isn't. I have only read a few of Bailey's things, just like the rest of you, but he does not seem to be in the agenda business. Science is about explaining what might otherwise be unexplainable.

Hank Campbell | 07/02/09 | 19:23 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I'm sure you are aware that many of the comments from the "transcommunity" on this, will have little to do with MJ. (JIC and for the rest of the readers) Those comments will have nothing to do with what Dr Bailey wrote here and now. They are referring to "The Man Who Would be Queen" (Bailey 2003) and the theory due to Ray Blanchard that there are two types of transsexuals. One type non-homosexual motivated by an autogynephilic desire to become a woman. The other type homosexual and motivated by their taste for hetrosexual men to become women. (Female to male transsexuals are not addressed by Blanchard's theory)

It is considered offensive by many because as they read it: • The theory defines transsexual women by their "sex assigned at birth", instead of gender identity. • ' ' assigns specifically masculine sexual drives to MTF transsexual women (i.e. That of a heterosexual cross dresser to autogynephilc transsexuals, Or that of a extra horny gay male to a homosexual transsexual) • Many in the transcommunity fear that if this theory were accepted even a little it would lead to non-homosexual transsexuals specifically being denied acess to surgery and other transition related medical care.

Those are the major concerns I have seen written and heard spoken.

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 01:44 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I wouldn't disagree with the expressed concerns you list. Aspects of Bailey's work might be seen as a threat to someone's very existence and that adds potency to the rejection of his theories.

However, I wonder if the main issue that is that his observations seem simply not to match the experiences of those whose lives are wholly immersed in transsexualism and are rejected not simply because they are found to be offensive, but that they are seen to be wrong.

The topic is immensely complex and controversial. The focus on sexual acts and sexual orientation seems to me to be overly stressed and the impact of societal pressures to conform to the norm are insufficiently explored. For many people, perhaps most, the issue is simply not about sex. It is about one's place in society. And it is about society's perceptions of people and about normativity, where adherence to the norm becomes an "ought". The pressures to conform are immense and, frequently, very damaging.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 02:57 AM • Reply to This »

• Link

The problem with that is that there are people who say that Blanchard's theory matches their experiences. i.e. Anne Lawrence, the people at transkids.us (which is no longer up).

That said some of the concerns I have listed are shared by them as well. i.e. The people at transkids.us myself included do not think that our transitions were notivated soley by our sex drives. If we have done adult work it's not due to being "especially well suited" it's due to being black or hispanic and transsexual with the discrimination those bring. Then having to finance transition without the resources others have.

Why have you not heard that? {rant} One thing that has rubbed me the wrong way from the start is how the concerns of those would would be labeld "homosexual transsexuals" are largely subordiated to the controversy over autogynephilia. Even going so far as to deny the existence of people who could be ID'd as transsexual as children, declaring to be fake any transsexual who even by loose association identifies themselves as a "homosexual transsexual" et al. The whole thing took on the character of a witch hunt. History shows being on the side of the witch hunters is never a good bet.

The so called "transcommunity" as another blogger puts it, has become dominated by what she calls "White women born transsexual". Transsexual women who from their stations of relative privillage look down their noses at the black and hispanic sisters who must struggle to survive. They assert that they are driven by neurology...but at the same time, if you have ever done sex work to pay the bills, or have decided to live without SRS you are not a transsexual. Their rhetoric is 10X worse than anything in TMWWBQ yet they get a pass. {/rant}

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/03/09 | 12:53 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

I agree with you David D; when I read "I recall hearing him speak for the first time during the 1983 Motown 25 special and concluding that he was probably gay." that swept away any doubt I had about this article being purely speculative and not based on science at all. It is nicely written, but it isn't about Michael Jackson - it is more a general discussion about various kinds of sexuality. Obviously, no one who didn't know Michael Jackson personally can say the first thing about his very personal life. It is totally non-scientific and in my opinion highly questionable - to put it kindly.

This article is driving a lot of traffic to the blog - and good for scientificblogging.com, I'm sure, but I'm afraid I find this is hurting science in general as it is so speculative.

Michael Jackson's image was eccentric. That is all we can say, we outsiders. I guess we can all agree that he was a tremendous artist, though :-)

— Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth

Bente Lilja Bye | 07/14/09 | 13:29 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I agree with you. I hope I live long enough to see that being gay is viewed as normal, being eccentric is viewed as a positive twist on life by providing another way of looking at things, and that labels no longer exist. I don't know why we can't just determine that certain behavior is wrong or harmful without dissecting it into thousands of pieces and giving ourselves headaches. Michael Jackson needed urgent care and boundaries and an alliance of discerning people to confront him and give him no way out. He wanted help and support. He asked for it a thousand times.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/16/09 | 21:01 PM • Reply to This »

• Link A voice of reason. As I read this my thought was, how unethical and unscientific, to attempt to analyze Jackson based on rumor and speculations recycled through tabloids and into mainstream media. Like analyzing a fictional character in a novel. The least Bailey could've done is to speak with people who actually knew Jackson. He could start with Dr Wayne Dyer who considered Jackson to be one of the most spiritually evolved people he'd ever met. Many people who actually spent time with him trusted him explicitly with their children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43YkTHNAb00&feature=player_embedded As did the mother of Ryan White, AIDS victim, whom Jackson befriended. And, Dave Dave, whose father doused him with gasoline and set him afire. And many others. If you remove the speculation that there was a sexual attraction to the young men in his life, you might be able to see him as an ally for young men. He had been a mentor from an early age in his JW religion. See if A-sexual fits for you. Androgenous. A balance of masculine and feminine energies. As for Jackson's voice, listen to his brother Jackie speak?

And the infamous allegations, there is ample evidence to indicate the first allegation was Extortion and the second, Malicious Prosecution. How the first case came to be settled- it's in a court document, and yes it was the insurance company's decision. Jackson may have eventually agreed, but initially refused a settlement.He had refused payment to Chandler in negotiations that went on before the allegation was made. Ironically, the $20 million was exactly what the father had been trying to get from Jackson so he could give up dentistry and write a screenplay. The boy made no allegations until his father put him under Sodium Amytal for a routine dental procedure. And planted suggestions? The second boy made no allegation until the DA made a visit to his home and referred the family to the same lawyer and shrink that was involved in the first case. The second boy has admitted that Jackson was innocent. The first refused to testify in the second case and Jackson's attorney had witnesses prepared to testify that the alleged victim had told them that his father made him lie. Journalists who bothered to ferret out the truth- Mary A Fisher, Aphrodite Jones, Charles Thomson, Geraldine Hughes (secretary for the attorney who represented both boys). Their works are online. It sometimes happens that bad things happen to good people. Jackson's respect and genunie caring for children made him an easy target- for allegations and speculative diagnoses. Perhaps now, his own, unique 'disorder'. LOL I'll read Part 2 tomorrow. Not sure I can stomach it tonight.

Anonymous (not verified) | 03/01/11 | 01:02 AM • Reply to This »

• Link @David D

Frankly, I expect nothing less from Bailey who continues to confuse autogynephilia with gender identity. A quack, indeed.

But then,making outrageous claims sells copy.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 05:03 AM • Reply to This »

• Link That's funny, "Dr." Bailey, because I think you have an erotic fixation disorder that causes you to be obsessed with undermining and oppressing transgender and bisexual people. And now you're speculating on the disorders of a dead man you probably never even met let alone had the opportunity to actually study. Hard to take anything you say seriously, you insufferable jackass. Jackson (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 13:37 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Michael Bailey wrote: "Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually."

I hope you aren't saying that transsexuals are homosexual males who decide to become women. That would be totally false, and disrespectful as well. I wasn't a man who decided to become a woman. I was a woman who changed my body to align it with my internal identity. Sex and sexual preference had nothing to do with my decision to change my body. If I never had sex again, my decision to become my true self would have been the same. Living a lie was just too much torture for me.

Laura

Laura R. (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 13:48 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually."

This is irresponsible and inaccurate information. Transsexuals are not "homosexual males who decide to become women" (or lesbians who decide to become men), and transgender people are not as a group exclusively attracted to one sex or the other. Your research and knowledge in this area is clearly subpar, and I would request that you refrain from making such ignorant statements in the future until you take an opportunity to educate yourself.

Tonei G. (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 15:24 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually."

The sentence that precedes this one with which you take such issue refers to "homosexual males who decide to become women." I'm assuming the sentence -- and idea -- at issue, "homoesexual" modifies both "drag queens" and transsexuals." Thus, "homosexual drag queens and homosexual transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men...."

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 17:55 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It is absurd to say that transsexuals are homosexual males. This is wrong and completely inaccurate. And there could be a homosexual male who is also sexually aroused by the thought of him being female (as an object of sexual desire of another male), which does not indicate autogynephilia at all. The terms are so badly confused by Bailey. Homosexual males are male by gender whether or not they are sexually aroused by feminine things in themselves. Transsexuals are female by gender identity though they may not be sexually aroused by the female in them. Autogynephiles have just a paraphilia, so, they are just males who wish they could be females for sexual obsessions. That's the ultimate truth and needs no further investigation to confuse people.

Sam (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 12:45 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Professor Bailey, as a heterosexual autogynephilic with no desire to transition, I'm not sure whether to be amused or offended at your assertions. You hold the title of "professor" -- one would assume the caliber of your research to be a little higher.

aq (not verified) | 07/02/09 | 16:15 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Are you saying transsexuals don't act like females? I'm confused. Apparently you haven't talked to the right transsexuals. Anyway, there are many issues and it's interesting.

Scott (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 07:27 AM • Reply to This »

• Link In relation to Michael Jackson's interest in pubescent boys, here is a link to an article in Britain's Daily Mirror.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/06/28/first-target-of-michael-j...

Whilst I wouldn't regard the British tabloids as the most reliable source, the story does have the ring of truth about it.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 08:51 AM • Reply to This »

• Link once again Bailey proves/shows how much of an idiot he is. Talk about spouting crap. Talk about a full out sexually fixated narcissist. Oner need only spend a few hours to read up on the various, junk, studies he has done over the years and how he came to his "brilliant" conclusions to understand his constant desire to deal with his own sexual issues. Now the guy can read minds, dead ones at that, uses false autopsy reports and just plain makes it up as he goes. What's the matter Micheal, you need attention that much?

femme (not verified) | 07/03/09 | 20:00 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Regarding Bailey's previous work, I love how everyone seems to call it "junk science", but nobody has come up with any criticism of his methodology. Instead, it's just "well, that doesn't match up with my personal experience, so his findings must be wrong".

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 01:10 AM • Reply to This »

• Link "My personal experience" comes from both client work and from social and support interaction with over a thousand trans people. I simply do not see what Bailey sees. If nothing else, it raises a question mark over sampling methods, both mine and his.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 02:56 AM • Reply to This »

• Link And so the professor further reinforces what is already blatantly obvious. This article is another example of the ramblings of a sexually obsessed, fantasist-cum-quack who doles out pseudo-science with his one free hand.

A James (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 04:48 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Michael Jackson was studied by numerous psychologist's (including for the court) that determined he was not sexually attracted to children. One of them, Dr. Stan Katz. People use the word 'freakish' to describe him. I don't think he was freakish. Marilyn Manson, yes. Michael Jackson, not really.. like plenty of people perhaps he wanted in some areas opposite of what he had (skin, nose) I think people were surprised at the change but it was gradual and as far as plastic surgery, they did an excellent job in accomplishing the look he wanted. He looked great.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/04/09 | 15:46 PM • Reply to This »

• Link feeling of love and attraction towards a child from a pedeophile?. Man you got that wrong. A child cannot comprehend romantic love, their brains are not mature enough. And so the law of nature tells us thatthere is no way you as an adult can be ''in love'' with a child when a child can never return that love, obsessed perhaps, attracted yes not love. Thats BULLSHIT

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/05/09 | 13:05 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It's really sad when one can only focus on the negative. I believe Michael was a Asexual man but what does it really matter the man is gone the family and friends that loved him are so hurt and want to focus on how great he was, how giving he was and what changes he brought to the world and the music industry. Like how he was the first black entertainer on MTV, bringing some diversity. It so interesting that everyone that had a close relationship or even those that met him had nothing but nice things to say about him. So maybe to the professor (someone that never met him) he was weird but to others his personal life and preference had nothing to do with how he treated them, which one would think that would be the most important thing to remember and talk about. For once can we focus on the good and discard the bad? I love you Michael Jackson and my you rest in peace.....

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/06/09 | 11:42 AM • Reply to This »

• Link What an utter pile of crap. Bailey, learn to shut the fuck up about gay men and our sexual feelings, because you plainly do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 01:03 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Don't be mad about someones opinion of homosexuals and michael jackson. If you are gay than I think you have some mental disorder, and need psychological help that does not exist in the U.S.A. If you are a convicted pedaphile I think life imprisonment or death is appropriate. If you like to take advantage of teenagers and their sexual promiscuity, you need to be arrested for statutory rape and sentenced to 10 years, and repeat offenders should get a life sentence.Michael Jackson was a homosexual hebephile in my opinion and should not be glorified as a great human being. Also, Elvis was a heterosexual hebephile, Priscilla was only 14 years old when he met her. Both should be remembered as the Kings of Hebephilia.R. Kelly and Jerry Lee Lewis will be the princes.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:40 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I'm not concerned with people's "opinions", it's just the obvious ignorance and cliche-mongering of Bailey's posts that annoys me. Your views about being gay and having mental disorders also are ignorant. I don't know why you'd care about my mental health, and apparently you haven't heard about NARTH, but oh well.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 04:19 AM • Reply to This »

• Link michal jackson was a strange individual. Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, they are mentally ill. Anyone who has anal sex male or female has some serious issues. That hole is for relieving the bowels and farting.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:24 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Sounds like cowboy likes sixteen year olds

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 10:28 AM • Reply to This »

• Link This is total and utter conjecture. However, the vast amount of words wasted explaining the author's factually unbased opinion might lead some to think he had a proper argument. The author repeats the he thinks MJ did molest children, but gives not even passing evidence to support his belief.

There was a time when unrelated adult men could be close friends (and even nap) with a child without people presuming a sexual nature about their relationship. Too bad those times have past in America.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 12:37 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Way back when men used to lay with young boys, people were naive to homosexuality. I do believe that those young boys were being molested and abused. Just because no one suspected anything does not mean that they were not being abused. Children were physically abused alot more often in olden days. So I would believe that they were also sexually abused. Men also married younger girls back then.Sounds to me that you would like to lay with a couple of young boys.Back to Michael Jackson, Michael may not have molested the young boys, but he is not the saint alot of people are painting him as.We can not prove either way so lets just leave it alone. THE FREAK IS DEAD! He was not a gift from god! everyone wants to credit him for where music is today, I give more credit to James Brown. Who do you think Michael was emulating as a child.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 14:27 PM • Reply to This »

• Link must say one thing, all you people who think Micheal Jackson is capable of hurting a child are the ones who truly need help not Micheal. He was pure and would never hurt a child. Its people like you and the congressman that think that way and who are the real perverts. I wish there were more people in this world who were like Micheal Jackson, the world would be a better place. He was loving, giving and donated immense amounts of money to charities… what have you done??? other than buy YOURSELF STUFF and drive your fancy cars. Before you judge someone know the whole story and don’t just listen to the awful media because its horrible stories like this that sell not the trulth unfortuantely. As a mother i would leave my children with Micheal and not one second have doubts as to wheather he would hurt my children. He was a legend and deserves all the attention he is getting. For all you selfish, rude, hating people that have nothing better to do than insult micheal SHAME ON YOU … If you saw it with your own eyes then you can accuse him otherwise please keep quite and let the world mourn a wonderful artist, man and father

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/07/09 | 17:26 PM • Reply to This »

• Link How do you know he is innocent? How do you know what kind of father he was. That awful media has been painting him as a saint.If more people were like Michael Jackson, then we would have alot more people ashamed of who they are, and trying to be what they are not. For those who want to see Michael as a great person SHAME ON YOU! He was a good artist and dancer but he was not a saint. And he was not proud of how the heavenly father made him.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 14:39 PM • Reply to This »

• Link How do any of us know what Michael was like....We do not know and the media will give small bits of info. and piece other bits of info.together to create the person they want us to think the person is. So for those who want to see Michael as a great person you do just that and those of you that don't you do just that but let there be no shame. That's the problem some people like to shame others into being and doing things the way they want things viewed. Be free, be you and do you. Its all an opinion and we all have that right to one.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/14/09 | 12:23 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Bury Mr. Jackson in Gary, indiana

johnny (not verified) | 07/08/09 | 16:56 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "Autogynephilia is probably the most common motivation in the United States for sex reassignment surgery among males becoming female ... Do not confuse autogynephiles with individuals such as gay drag queens or homosexual males who decide to become women. Homosexual drag queens and transsexuals are exclusively and unambiguously attracted to men, and they do not cross dress or behave like women, or imagine that they have female genitalia, in order to excite themselves sexually. " It's a shame that a "Professor," of psychology no less, at a prestigious institution such as Northwestern doesn't know what he is talking about. It is YOU, "Dr." Baily, who is confusing terms and definitions. Gender identity and sexual orientation are completely separate, transsexuals are not "homosexual men" (they're transsexuals!), and the theory of autogynephilia is espoused by a limited number of people in the field, mainly because it's unproven. Where did you get the ridiculous statistics that autogynephilia is the most common motivation for sex reassignment surgery? Medical transition of transsexuals is the most common motivation for SRS! Someone should send your inaccurate blog to your department chair. I hope you do not see clients, and if you do, I have sincere pity (and concern) for them under your care.

Anderson (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 00:04 AM • Reply to This »

• Link in my personnal opinion on mihael jackson sexual orientation i believe he had in one way a regressive mind when it came to certain aspects of life. many people still don't realize he was at a young age program to be like an adult showman and that is probably why he when he mature wanted to create a childhood that he never had for example he never always had time to play with other childern when he was a kid and he came for simple roots and never had much in life except his talents and that is why i believe he created neverland it was like the playground he never had a chance to play in,and even when the where investigating the moslation case on michael jackson the pychitarist that examined him said that he didn't have the mind of a pedihilla but the mind of an regerssive person who had the mentalty of a10 year old boy which i would believe would result in odd behaviuor i'm not trying to say he had no brains he was unargubly a musical genuis but he always had that ablity i'm only saying that he was the way he was because of his childhood which probably caused he not to mature in the right way in some areas of his life

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 00:38 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Hank you're gorgeous. I think I'm in Love.

Peter

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 07:12 AM • Reply to This »

• Link These blogs seem more like an attack on Dr. Bailey's opinion, rather than a discussion of MIchael Jackson's interest in pubescent boys. Whether he was or was not sexually involved with the young boys, we do not know. But we do know that he put himself in a vulnerable position by sharing his bed and holding hands with them. He showed very poor judgement by continuing to sleep with the youngsters after he had already settled out of on two previous occasions for molestation charges. I do not know if he was a hebephile, or a transsexual wannabe, but I can understand why so many people think that he had to have some sexual interest in boys. In my opinion Michael was mentally ill and theres alot more to it than just a missed childhood. Janet Jackson was also in show business at an early age and does not seem to have the behaviors of her older brother. Maybe his brain isn't wired right or something.

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/09 | 09:12 AM • Reply to This »

• Link " Janet Jackson was also in show business at an early age and does not seem to have the behaviors of her older brother. Maybe his brain isn't wired right or something."

You do realize that no 2 people are alike--even if they are twins. Two people might have the same experience & react differently.

Besides, by the time Janet entered show business, MJ & the bros. had already done all the hard work & paved the way for her. Being the sister of Michael Jackson, I'm sure opened a lot of doors for her.

I hope his brain was wired differently, because we don't want the word genius to be overused--do we?.

Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:20 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I am a white female who was sexually abused as a child. In my opinion, I really do not think Michael Jackson molested children. I would think my opinion would count a little, since I know what it is like to be a victim. After finding out how much money the parents received, and the books that were publish by Jordan Chandler, his sister and his uncle, it is so obvious the entire family wanted to ruin Michael Jackson's career and life for money. Jordan Chandler's father Evan Chandler knew the worst thing a man could EVER be accused of is "child molesting". Evan Chandler did a terrific job convincing the world. Maybe people should put Evan Chandler's under a microscope, now.. After what happened to me, I could never publish a book about what happened. I think I would have jumped off a bridge if my family started telling my story and publishing books. People who are legitimate victims do not want to talk about this unless they know it is going to help other people and maybe not even then. I was never a Michael Jackson fan but these accusations should really stop, whenever I hear them I just want to scream. I never heard the biggest child advocate in the world "John Walsh" warning parents about Michael Jackson. Has anyone? It was clearly the parents fault for allowing their children to stay with him, which makes me believe the parents had ulterior motives. Even after the first allegations, parents allowed it ! Seem a little odd? I bet other victims would agree with me..

Anonymous (not verified) | 07/11/09 | 09:32 AM • Reply to This »

• Link It is so weird to say that transsexuals are homosexual males. The truth is that transexuals have a female gender identity and homosexual males have a male gender identity though many gay men might like to don feminine objects as sexual objects too which again does not mean they are autogynephilic. Bailey does need a refresher course so that he does not end up labelling all feminine males and boyish tomboys as transsexuals or autogynephiles. His definitions would only add to more confusion among other people,so, I request him to stop his comments unless he learns more. The ultimate reality is that paraphilias are just paraphilias and they never reflect inborn gender identity.

Sam (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 12:56 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I think that it's due to these doctors as Bailey that more and more paraphilic people are lining up to say they are born transgendered. Many people have gender issues and/or paraphilias in private and it is more common today due to rising consumerism and sexually arousing stimuli all around. There is nothing to call every parahilic person as autogynephile. Desires are just getting manifold these days even among ordinary people, so, it's an age where it's really difficult to identify the real transsexual from the artificial one, so, Bailey's articles only confuse the issue further.

Manny (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:02 PM • Reply to This »

• Link The day is not far away when a human being will call into question every fantasy he has everyday and think it's happening to him as he is born like that. Does Bailey want every human on earth to start questioning his gender?

Rhodes (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:04 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Why is everything always treated as an aspect of being "inborn" that cannot be controlled through counselling? Maybe true transsexualism is like that, but surely, not the sexual obsession of autogynephiles? I fail to understand why instead of setting up professional counsellors to cure people of sexual paraphilias, people like Bailey always aggravate this world's natural order by saying everything is inborn? This is one of the reasons why I hate researchers and like corporate managers. Researchers only present their own lopsided views, they don't care about preserving the world and its people in reality. It's better we called corporate managers to deal with such issues as they are more practical.

Rhodes (not verified) | 07/12/09 | 13:07 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Transsexualism is transsexualism, the root causes do not matter. In the theory that Dr. Bailey subscribes to there are no "true transsexuals"....just transsexuals who are ALL equally "true". The homosexual transsexual, former feminine boy come woman, is just a true as the autogynephilic not so feminine male come woman. It is a distinction but not difference. What matters is that the person always functions better after they begin living as a female.

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/15/09 | 19:25 PM • Reply to This »

• Link When anybody's paraphilias are met in real life, he would obviously perform and live better and more happily, it's common sense. So, no wonder that the autogynephile would be happier after transition. Does that mean you give vent to all types of anomalous paraphilias and let people do whatever they want? Remember, this is democracy but not a hooligan's land. Bailey should be ashamed of himself. He has caused great shame to Europe and USA.

Angrygay (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 00:25 AM • Reply to This »

• Link

"Angrygay" you do realize that to allot of people being gay is a paraphillia. :-/ People in glass houses....

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/16/09 | 02:19 AM • Reply to This »

• Link PEOPLE WHO THINK MICHAEL JACKSON IS PEDO TYPE IN GOOGLE jodan chandler says it all rip cant stop crying :(

sarah (not verified) | 07/13/09 | 17:40 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

In my Jackson Freakishness Explained article posted herein, I speculate that the loveless sterile way that Jackson grew up may have contributed to his similarly freakish level of talent. I don't know what went on in his home, but would note that he was acquitted in a criminal trial. I've been on a jury, and although the system is not perfect, I think it is good enough that he would have been convicted if he was clearly guilty. Thus I make the assumption that he is not clearly guilty, although I'm not familiar with the trial, including what he was specifically found not guilty of.

The whole situation is sad. It is sad that such a talented guy had such demons inside. It is sad that Joe Jackson seems apparently incapable of human emotion. And, it is sad that either Jackson had inappropriate relations with some children, or the parents of some children used their children to try to gain from an innnocent and naive superstar.

James Hawkins | 07/15/09 | 12:31 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Just any type of paraphilia may exist, including being gay. So, just stop that through psychological counseling, that's it. These researchers are inhibiting addressing counselling by forcing people to accept themselves as born this way. They are an enemy to human psychology. Please kick them out. As for Jackson, a lot could have been done through counseling. But doctors made it worse for him by encouraging him to proceed with his surgery and drugs. The doctors and medical researchers are guilty for this, not Jackson. He was just a victim of human devil of psychology which could be addressed sensibly. What this nonsense of inner life and all? Stupid unscientific thoughts.

Angrygay (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 05:37 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Hontas Farmer, have you gone mad, claiming that people change sex just because they would "perform better in the opposite role"? I guess then you should suggest transforming all women in this world to men since many women are not able to realize their skills in public due to sexual harassment in office, professions, so are sad being females afterall. Support that also if you want. Do just anything, right, you morons?

Cook (not verified) | 07/16/09 | 05:43 AM • Reply to This »

• Link

Who said jack about changing sex? Are you talking about my article on MJ? If so then I think maybey you read the title and greatly misunderstood both it, and the process of transgender transition.

— Dont tase me bro

Hontas Farmer | 07/19/09 | 19:57 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I did not mention about Jack changing sex. I referred to your above comments: " What matters is that the person always functions better after they begin living as a female."

Cook (not verified) | 07/20/09 | 11:33 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I think this article speaks volumes more about the hidden world of the author and his agenda. What is conveniently overlooked and unfairly unbalanced in this premature analysis is the reality of Michael's moves - there is nothing childish in his talent. In looking at the author, I see he is not an attractive man and can surmise that growing up with pop cultural icons like Michael must have left him feeling quite inadequate. Furthermore, what kind of man dedicates his life to be a professional in the strange sexual behavior department - probably one who has had to masturbate more than average. Turnabout is fair play.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/02/09 | 19:15 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Anonymous...yes why don't we do some armchair analysis by virtue of the author's picture and his blogging here of his sexual orientation and apparent other abnormalities. Why bother with facts or information. Let's all just speculate. We can blather on and on about much and nothing and come up with any conclusion we want to. Paulie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 18:59 PM • Reply to This »

• Link 'Michael Jackson' didn't have a childhood he was abused by his father both physically and emotionally. he lacked a good male rolemodel. This made MJ feel unworthy, insecure, lonely and without love. his thinking became warped and his psyches became deeply wounded, An important part of why MJ was like this he never grew up but remained a hurt child. I honestly Believe that MJ was a Pedophile I think he did hurt that boy. People always use the excuse of the whole 'the family wanted money' But no one ever listened to the other half of the story. Just because you ":think" Michael Jackson was Innocent doesn't mean he was. Michael was happy with himself he wasn't just any person he was the "King Of Pop" so he couldn't possibly be bad.

Michael earned this boys trust, he became close to the boys family he took his time to "groom" this boy the way he wanted him. He seduced him with gifts,money,trips etc... The boys father was not in the kids life MJ knew that so he wanted to make the boy "think" he cared about him just has much.

And I don't care what anyone else thinks Michael Jackson did molest Jordan Chandler, and I believe that he made Jordan feel ashamed and made Jordan feel that he was the bad one, So I feel for Jordan because I do think he was abused.

Look up Traits of a pedophile- and read what it tells you MJ fits all of the traits but people are so blinded by his fame that you can't see past that because under his whole Image he was a troubled man who needed help. I just feel sorry that he never tried to seek that 'help'. Michael was an amazing entertainer but he was not a very good person.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/06/09 | 20:57 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Actually research the case and look at all the other boys that Michael Jackson 'groomed' and who have claimed Michael Jackson did not molest them. Just because you are predisposed to believing that Michael Jackson is guilty doesn't mean he was, especially if the evidence contradicts your line of thinking. I guess all the other kids that MJ 'groomed' must have enjoyed their molestation and thats why they are defending to their molester. Jordie Chandler with the help of his con-artist of a father was the only child brave enough to admit that the molestation was wrong. You haters are even more delusional than MJ Fanatics.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 01:34 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Michael Jackson was not born with any genetic disroder, so do none of the GLBTs, All psychologically abnormal people in this world have a wounded childhood in some or the other way though they can't recollect it. A girl becomes a lesbian when in her childhood she has learnt to despise femininity. A common evidence which suggests this is that most gays to a great extent exhibit narcissism or are highly self-obsessed or egoistic. This shows that such weird thoughts stem from a broken childhood or a distorted way of upbringing. So, the same case applies to Jackson as well. He was a mentally castrated male as due to his wicked father, he began to despise males and masculinity, and hence went on to love children. He might as easily have become a homosexual and developed SSA tendencies..

Cook (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 03:24 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I guess "mental castration" has a devastating effect on a person's self-identity and people like Bailey are making it worse for these people by saying they were born with these disorders. Most people who develop cross-gender or anomalous traits, have some distorted chain of events in their upbringing which makes them hate what they are. The example of Jackson's father gives a clear evidence of this.

Manny (not verified) | 08/07/09 | 03:27 AM • Reply to This »

• Link LOLOLOL

MJ + Pedophile = Same

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/17/09 | 09:20 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I think Jackson was a homosexual. The more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be homosexual, because of hormones in the mother's body, Michael was the 6th male to be born to Katherine Jackson (Marlon had a twin who died). Jackson also was upset at his divorce to Lisa Marie Presley because it "may never happen again" supposedly referring to being able to let himself go with someone. But it seems to me like he was worried may never be attracted to an actual female again. He was a virgin until he met her. Also he was very upset at being accused of homosexuality - would a heterosexual be so worried? Another thing is, if you watch videos of him, the way he expresses himself is very feminine - his face was expressive, and he reads the other person's face, whereas most men have fewer facial expressions and stare rather than flickering across the face.

These and many other things lead me to believe he was homosexual, and because of his religious upbringing stunted himself. Jackson was obviously comfortable with children, and maybe the only way he could express his sexuality was with them although he definately wasn't inherently attracted to them. I think he probably did abuse Jordan Chandler. Remember that paedophiles don't understand the emotional damage they cause and child abuse is okay if, for example, it's consented by the child. Or even initiated by the child - this can happen. Paedophiles can feel they are showing the victim love. He said he "would never hurt a child". He wouldn't, not intentionally. Note how he said hurt rather than touch. As for his surgery hobby, I can relate to that totally. If money was no object when I was 14 I would have done exactly the same thing. Michael said "you wanna die" and I totally understand that. I used to wish I was aborted and my parents were selfish for having a baby knowing they carried recessive ugly genes. Jackson was also fascinated with genes. Jackson was a dreamer and a fantasist, like me. This come about from having a bad chilhood and developing a vivid imagination to escape from it. He would have dreamed about being beautiful when he was younger and because of the vivid mind it would have seemed real to him, and then had surgery to turn it into actuality.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/26/09 | 22:45 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Bottom line: Michael Jackson was mentally ill and used his fame and fortune for both good and evil. In the end, he got what he deserved; an early death from a bad case of denial.

Anonymous (not verified) | 09/12/09 | 15:31 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Michael Jackson was scary looking and a pedophile. I don't understand how people can just say he wasn't because you enjoy his music. In the end we all have our different opinons on the case and none of us were there.

Anonymous (not verified) | 09/21/09 | 21:38 PM • Reply to This »

• Link MJ was innocent! If people did their research we wouldn't have endless nonsense from world authorities on him. Read redemption by geraldine hughes, conspiracy by aphrodite jones, mary fischer article for GQ magazine in 1994,larry nimmer dvd, floacist - MJ, tom mesereau wanted chandler to take the stand because he had witnesses that chandler had lied to save his family from being poor, jason francia mom got sacked from neverland for stealing then they made a story up. The families were all about greed and extortion. http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/the-settlement-did-jackson-admi... http://www.zimbio.com/Hip+Hop+Culture/articles/NYrfi5fp_1n/Micheal+Jacks... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-2005-mesereau-had-witnesses-ready-to-...

Anonymous (not verified) | 09/29/09 | 15:47 PM • Reply to This »

• Link All you ignorant fools should actually research the cases before passing judgment or else say you don’t know if he’s guilty or not because you don’t know the evidence. There is no evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested anyone other than the words of proven and admitted liars who couldn’t keep their lies straight under oath. If they had evidence in 1993, Sneddon would have arrested Michael Jackson and charged him with child molestation, instead the police investigation went on for more than a year and no charges were ever brought. Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 because he was NOT GUILTY. The prosecution presented NO evidence to support Gavin Arvizo’s claims that Michael Jackson molested him. Instead all the evidence, even the prosecution’s ‘evidence’ pointed to the fact that Gavin and his family were a bunch con-artists trying to pull the biggest con of their careers with the help of the mainstream media. People like to claim Michael Jackson was a pedophile based on these idiotic lines of reasoning. 1. “He’s spends time with kids instead of women, therefore he is a child molester”. If so how come all the kids he spends time with aren’t accusing him? How come all the victims that exist in your imaginations never come forward with allegations. He’s had thousands of kids at Neverland over the years, and only three accusers, all whose parents happen to be con-artists chasing after money. 2. “He paid them off so he’s guilty.” Do you know the difference between a civil case and criminal case. WTF is something as serious as child molestation doing in civil court instead of criminal court. If you think someone molested your kid you go straight to the cops, you don’t call your lawyer and file a lawsuit and then refuse to cooperate with the police once you get a settlement. Explain to me where in the settlement http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html does it say the money is contingent upon the accusers failure to cooperate with the police. It was the Chandler’s decision and theirs alone to run after taking the money. If you bother to read it (I know its to difficult for idiots) you’d notice MJ claimed he’s innocent in the settlement and accuser and his lawyers agreed to sign it. By this idiotic logic, Janet Arvizo and her children were telling the truth when they claimed that a JC Penny’s security guard beat and sexually abused her because JC Penny settled with her for more than 100,000. Please. 3. “He had money so he beat the rap.” Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, Chris Brown, Madoff, etc. I guess did not have enough money to beat the rap. Michael Jackson’s trial was one of the most expensive trial in U.S. History. It cost taxpayers 2.7 million dollars. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Michael-Jackson-s-Trial-Costs-2- 7-million... Sneddon had been chasing after Michael Jackson for 12 years and he still could not find any evidence or credible witnesses, despite ransacking Neverland twice with 70 police officers, setting up a hotline for alleged victims to come forward, and traveling around the world looking for victims. 4. “OJ Simpson got away with it, so Michael Jackson got away with it too.” People who think OJ is guilty can point to evidence, something that MJ haters have a hard time doing. By that same logic, Charles Manson is also innocent because some people are wrongfully convicted. Therefore, we should release all convicted criminals from prison. 5. "He sleeps with boys." This is not illegal. If you want to use this as proof of his guilt, then at a minimum the boys he's sleeping with have to be the ones accusing him, NOT you. This didn‘t happen in the Michael Jackson case, contrary to popular belief. Gavin Arvizo the boy accusing him in 2005 never slept in bed with Michael Jackson, according to the Martin Bashir interview and witnesses at the trial. He slept in the guest room with his family. Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, and Bert Lewis, all testified they slept with Jackson in the early 90s and nothing happened. Do you know better than them what happened to them? Jordie Chandler (the boy got the settlement in the early 90s) skipped the country so he wouldn't have to testify in the 2005 case. Gee, I wonder why? 6. “There was ‘lurid’ testimony. ‘Little' boys never lie (the boy was 13?). When a child speaks we should believe them…” I can give lurid testimony about you too. I wonder if that makes it true. Here’s one of my favorites from you tube. On the witch hunt for victims Diane Diamond comes across a boy who could give ‘lurid testimony’ that Michael Jackson molested him and details of his time at Neverland. She believed him and wasted months trying to corroborate his story and even gets the police involved. Turned out this kids a liar who’d never even met Michael Jackson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GbPkR-ne4

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 01:16 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Dude he was a pedophile. It hurts me too, but there is just too much evidence. The most potent: Why would little sweet Jordie not speak to his mother for 10 years?

25 Million dollars is not pocket change regardless of how rich you are. That's hush money

Why would all these new anchors say he was a pedophile if he wasn't: Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Catherine Crier, Matt Lauder, Diane Sawyer the list goes on and on.

Dude one is a one off, 2 is a coincidence, but 3 is a pattern.

MICHAEL JACKSON WAS A PEDOPHILE deal with it. I am will to argue with anyone based on months of collecting evidence that your precious MJ was a child molester. Even his Rabbi thinks he did sometime unholy to children.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 21:38 PM • Reply to This »

• Link No there is not enough evidence. You can't even argue with me on the evidence. You name drop, a bunch tabloid reporters, all of whom have a financial interest in Michael Jackson being a pedophile and being found guilty so they could continue their sensational reporting. They all wanted him to be guilty, from the moment the charges were brought in 1993. It would have been the biggest fall from grace in history. Imagine the one of the most famous people in the world, guilty of the most heinous crimes and going to prison. That would have been a great story. The extortion angle isn't a big enough story. The public LOVES sex scandals. Don't be retarded and tell me just because a bunch of tabloids say he's guilty, therefore it must be true. Point me to the evidence that suggests he's guilty.

Also, you're lying. It was not 25 million dollars. Go click on the link I provided for you in my post and figure out how much money it was. This is another example of ignorant sensationalism. The truth is not interesting enough, you have to make stuff up.

As for your 'hush money' claim go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation), and learn what a civil settlement is. I even addressed that piece of nonsense in my original post. Its telling that you have nothing better to argue.

The same thing goes for your '3' is a pattern, is BS. I already addressed that in my original post. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, and use logic, stop repeating i How can he be a pedophile and associates with thousands of kids, and even bragged about sleeping with them, and have only 3 alleged victims, all whoms parents are scum bag con-artists (this is a proven fact). That makes no sense. If you wanna talk about patterns, there has been a pattern of Michael Jackson publicly befriending boys for the past 30 years of his life. There is a pattern of boys DENYING that Jackson ever molested them. MJ always talked about how much he loved children in all of his interviews. He had nothing to hide from anybody. How do you explain the 30 kids the police interrogated in 1993 all of whom, except for the maid's son (maid happens to be a crook who was paid by Diane Dimond to say Michael Jackson is a pedophile), denied Jackson molested them. Plus the three men who actually SLEPT with Michael Jackson when they were children and claim he did not molest them. Contrast this with Gavin and Jason, who did not have a close relationship with Jackson and did not share a bed him, yet they claim he did molest them. Those two boys have parents with dubious motivations and its telling that they are the only ones making accusations. Jackson's lifestyle made him a sitting duck for child molestation accusation. Whats shocking is that there were so FEW allegations, from dubious sources.

Finally, you are lying about the Rabbi. He did not think he did something unholy to children, he took the politically correct route and said he does not know, BIG Diffference. Again, another example of fudging the truth to try to prove your point.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 01:21 AM • Reply to This »

• Link The one question I hear no-one asking in the press or blogland in general is:- ‘why’ was Michael Jackson taking an extreme drug? What made a relatively fit man known for abstention from the early part of his career until the mid-1990's, end his days in a made-to-measure trauma room?

A star by the age of 10, catapulted into superstardom after the success of his first two solo albums, his dominance in the music industry coincided with the multimedia explosion of the late 1980’s. One of the first of the new breed of artists to fully explore the potential of synergistic promotion of product as a vehicle to reach new audiences, by 1991 the 'Michael Jackson' brand, had penetrated the consciousness of the entire developed and most of the undeveloped world.

With such unprecedented accessibility came also unprecedented pressure. Pressure to maintain and exceed his own standards, constant deconstruction by the press, and emotional isolation as the gilded chains of a life lived under the microscope bound ever tighter. There is no room here to list the enormous contribution he made to the lives of children all over the globe. His efforts are a matter of public record and the information regarding them is easily obtainable on the web.

Suffice it to say, Michael saw children not as ‘people-in-waiting’, but as bonafide, sentient personalities whose process and concerns were worthy of respect and protection. Using his fame and wealth to radically benefit the lives of such young people was something Michael believed to be his ultimate purpose here, and it is in this light that we can perhaps understand the catastrophic, internal damage the public cauterization that came from 1993 onwards must have done to him. Something rotten has been decaying at the the heart of our media for some time now, but it took the death of one of its favourite page-fillers to expose the reality of what the cumulative effect of deliberate mental and emotional attack on a person actually looks like. It must surely now be apparent that the existing regulatory checks and balances within the media are totally inadequate –and further, that those monitoring capabilities are unable to prevent the now standard ‘take aim’ and ‘destroy’ default position the media now typically seems to operate from in relation to the subjects it ‘goes after.’

Michael’s early death was not a given. Only the most imperceptive would deny that the anaesthetic that killed him was, in reality, just a formality. What killed Michael Jackson was the sustained agony of being put through a baseless, protracted trial in full view of the world’s lens - knowing if found guilty, he would be removed from his children’s lives. And even after his acquittal, facing relentless vilification by a media that chose to simply disregard a verdict they found economically inconvienient.

British journalist Charles Thomson’s clear analysis of the recently released FBI files which can be viewed at: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-j...

- finally and absolutely debunks the myth of Michael Jackson as child molester. Thomson’s point by point breakdown of the files reveals not only the inability of both the FBI and the LAPD to provide any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jackson in an investigation that spanned over a decade, but also the continuing inference by the media of exactly the opposite of this.

It is important to note that there is a profound difference between the FBI stating that X and Y were alleged, and the FBI saying they investigated X and Y – and found X and Y to be proven. Thomson’s review of the files is thus required reading for any who wish to seperate the facts from the soundbites which have largely dominated the media reporting on them.

Because the truth is, after the most thorough investigation the American taxpayer’s money could buy, one of the world's foremost intelligence gathering agencies and the LAPD came up with precisely – nothing. Instead we were served a collage of cut-out articles from a UK tabloid, the dubious recollections of an unverifiable woman on a train, and two ex-employees who only came forward after the 1993 allegations broke and who, coincidentally, were also hawking a tell-all book to anyone who would listen.

Long before Dr Murray ever wrote his first 'feel-good' prescription, a lie of epic proportions would set in motion a cataclysmic series of events that would bring Michael to the state of profound depletion we saw in 2005. Evan Chandler - a known brutalist, and Janet Arviso, a proven welfare cheat and compensation chaser, manipulated the American criminal system and a willing media to bury Michael under the worst label society has determined exists. No proof was required, the suggestion was enough. And the world watched on the edge of their seats, as the obvious perjury of the witnesses was overlooked in the stampede to crucify a man previously so celebrated.

The inevitably, frenzied media coverage of Dr Murray’s impending trial which will replay the details of Michael's dying moments for months to come, has now already begun its crescendo. It is more than a little disturbing to observe how quickly those same people who actively colluded in the degradation and erosion of Michael’s spirit and dignity for over 15 years, have regrouped to focus on Dr Murray as the 'fall guy' for the part he played in Jackson's death. Murray's culpability cannot be denied, but he was far from alone in his opportunism.

Where were the voices now wailing about ‘wasted resources’ and the ‘rights’ of taxpayers when Tom Sneddon authorized the use of millions of dollars of federal money to pursue Michael in his deeply personal and blinkered 'takedown' of the, then – biggest pop star on the planet?

Michael Jackson didn’t bankrupt the City of Angels; they fell all by themselves. For a country that can shine so bright when it chooses to – what America did to this man stands as one of the most shameful examples of engineered cruelty and unmitigated persecution to be witnessed in modern times.

p.s Short version: Michael Jackson was not a pedophile.

Deborah Ffrench (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 18:30 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Considering the picture of this mr Bailey, I think he probably is an homosexual and has autogynephilia but certainly does not have apotemnophilia. In any case he certainly looks like he has an erotic identity disorder. No wonder he became an "expert" on the subject.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 03:06 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I love this discussion. Let's be honest, if Michael was guilty of the first molestation, Jordan Chandler, then he was probaly guilty for the others. Due to the fact that the first case never went to trial unlike the last, and the accuser was never cross examined brings us to interesting cross roads. If the photographs of Michael's penis match the description given by Jordan Chandler, then we have a winner. However, those files are sealed for life. Without the public knowing definitively what the pictures look like the Jackson fans have a strong case for extortion. I believe it was both. Jordie's abuse was used by the father to extort money from Jackson. I also believe that June Chandler was not part of the extortion scheme she was a bystander and Jordie was a pawn.

Now according to Mary K Fischer the photographs do not match, mainly because Jordie said Jackson was circumcized when he was not. However some have pointed out that an erect penis can look circumcized. I am buying this argument,; Jordie was 13 years old he damn well knows the difference between an erect and flacid penis.

I still think MJ molested him, but I can understand why the fans have doubts. For me Jordie sounds and looks believable. Jason is totally believable, Gavin makes me pause especially after the Larry Nimmer documentary. Somedays I have my doubts to MJ's guilt. I sure wished Jordie had taken the stand, some of the Jackson fans I must given them credit can be very convincing with they theory and evidence, but Michael lied too much and June Chandler on the stand is very convincing.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:21 AM • Reply to This »

• Link You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to go around, claiming Michael Jackson was a PEDOPHILE, despite all the contrary evidence. That is slander, when even you have your doubts and you can't even make a strong case for it, I can tear each of your claims appart.

I forgot to address June Chandler in my other post. Regardless of whether or not Jordan Chandler's molestation claims are true, the entire family's life has been destroyed by what happened in 1993, which I believe due to the actual EVIDENCE (not heresay, innuendo, rumors, half-truths) was an extortion attempt. Plain and simple. Considering the fact that their was already family discord long before Jackson got involved, ie. the divorce, step-parents, bitter custody battle, there could be many reasons why her relationship with her son has suffered. You don't know what they are. It isn't proof of molestation.

Your claim that Michael Jackson, molested Jordie and his father was trying to extort Michael Jackson, makes no sense. If the molestation allegation was true, then obviously there would be no need for Evan extort Michael Jackson. He could have BOTH sent Jackson to prison AND collected every penny he earned in civil court. Michael Jackson was worth close to a half a billion dollars at that point in his career. If the molestation allegations were true, ie. the pictures matched Jordie's description, then he would have had no reason to settle for ONLY 15 million dollars and let Jackson get away with claiming that he was innocent in the settlement (if you even bothered to read the settlement documents that I posted you'd know this, instead of claiming ridiculous sums).

What people don't understand about a civil settlement is that it takes 2 to settle. People who sue, and then agree to settle for less than what they were suing for oftent do so because they fear they might not get anything in the end. Evan Chandler decided to settle because he was probably scared that the longer the CIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIL (get that through your thick head) case went on the clearer it would become that the allegations were bogus and he is trying to extort money.

Again, if it were true that Jackson molested the boy. Why did they refuse to cooperate with the police, not once but TWICE? Why didn't they agree to testify in, CRIMINALCRIMINALCRIMINALCRIMINAL court? Go read the settlement and tell me where in the settlement does it stop them from cooperating with the police. Is such a thing even legal? If Jackson wanted to 'pay em off' why did he wait for them to SUE him for money, before paying them? He could have just paid them from the beginning to say no molestation took place and you'd never know anything about it.

Jackson could list many reasons for agreeing to settle a lawsuit. Again go READ the settlement, where it explains his reasons for doing so. Corporations agree to settle lawsuits all the time. Bill O'reilly agreed to settle his sexual harrassment lawsuit. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. There is NO EXCUSE for the Chandler family's behaviour. There is no explanation, for their behavior other than the fact that they pulled a successful con.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 02:59 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I am buying this argument=I am not buying this argument

Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/10/09 | 00:25 AM • Reply to This »

• Link As for Jason being believable how do you explain the actual court TRANSCRIPT? Q. Do you remember stating in that interview, “They made me come out with a lot more stuff I didn’t want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head”? Do you remember that?

A. No.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript of that?

A. Probably not. But you can show it to me anyway.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ZONEN: What page, Counsel?

MR. MESEREAU: 30.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page of the transcript?

A. I have.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you’ve said?

A. No, it does not.

Q. Do you remember anything you said in that interview at the moment? A. Not really. (4908-4909 (20-15))

They “made him come out with a lot more stuff” that he didn’t want to say? Huh? They “kept pushing” him so much that he wanted to “hit them in the head”?? These are not the words of someone simply trying to hide a molestation. This appears to be a flat-out admission. Many observers who chimed in were completely stunned that this witness would make a statement like that. This also fits with the defense’s theory that these adults were leaning heavily on this kid back in 1993 to make an allegation against Jackson.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/09 | 03:12 AM • Reply to This »

• Link You are not proving your case, and I expected a better response. Firstly, Jordan Chandler accurately described MJ's penis. Tell me under what innocent circumstances would a 13 year boy accurately describe the penis of his 35 year old friend? Listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxyRGJ1latc and hear the doctor that performed the examination of Michael in the 1993 case.

Secondly, Mary K Fishcer said in an interview with Greta Van Sustren in 2004 that there was no corroborating evidence to support Jordie's claim. What she did not know (poor thing) was that Jason Francia was the corroborating evidence. Back in 1996 Maureen Orth wrote an article stating that there was another child that was molested, and was now in therapy. Fast forward to 2005. In the Arvizo case Jason Francia took to the stand and told us he went to therapy for 5 years to deal with the fondling. Jason is a youth minister.

Don't you see Jason is the missing link. I would be more incline to believe Michael had there been no Jason. Jason had nothing to gain from going to court. He was a 24 year old man on the witness stand crying. Grown men don't cry because they feel like it. There are some parts of his testimony that are unsure, but the core of it is a molestation.

These are facts that cannot be disputed.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/27/09 | 18:14 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Chinchilla, those "facts that cannot be disputed" which you present are only testimony. And witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence the is. So they can, indeed, be disputed. Along with those testimonies, there were testimonies from people like Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes saying that they were not molested. The prosecution presented witnesses saying they saw Michael molest Culkin, yet not only he denied it repeatedly, and even under oath in court, but he remained friends with Michael Jackson. The prosecution preseted as well a witness saying she saw Michael Jackson taking a shower with 8 year old Wade Robson. That witness was no one else than Blanca Francia, the mother of Jason, the another kid (now man) who accused Michael of molesting him. She claimed she saw that, but she didn't contact the authorities nor did she even quit her job. And her son was often there. Don't you think that had she been telling the truth she wouldn't have allowed her son there?. Wade Robson - who, as Macaulay Culkin remained friends with Michael until his death, went to court to deny he was molested.

So what you have is testimony against Michael and testimony on his favour. And the witnesses on his favour had NOTHING to win from it. That is not the case with the witnesses against him, many of whom had been fired for stealing (and only after that had made their claims against Michael), and had sold stories to tabloids. And who would have been able to make a lot of money from civil lawsuits and selling stories to tablids had Michael been convicted.

Cristina (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 10:54 AM • Reply to This »

• Link LOL. Go back and watch the video you posted. Notice where the doctor says he was TOLD LATER that the descriptions totally and absolutely matched the description of the genitalia. (I wonder by who.. Tom Sneddon??) In other words HE DID NOT SEE JORDIE'S DESCRIPTION and did not know if it was a match. You would think that they would use the same doctors who were present for the strip search to then go back and help the police analyze the pictures to see if it matched. That doctor claimed he did not see Jordie's drawings/descriptions. He was TOLD that they did match. He doesn't really know. You don't know either, so you can't claim they were.

Randy J. Tarrobarelli wrote about the strip search in his autobiography. He also said the boy was able to give detailed descriptions about the blemishes, however he also claimed MJ was circumized when he was not. Big detail to miss when you claim to be having all that oral sex and masturbation with Michael Jackson. One could easily argue he'd probably never even seen MJ's penis. The father used his contacts inside the hollywood doctors network (he was dentist to the stars) to get details about MJ's Vitligo. In Tarrobarelli's book he claimed that when Evan first learned that MJ befriended his son, he was able to get in touch with MJ's doctor in order to find out about about MJ's character. I wonder what else was he able to find out about MJ and Vitligo using his contacts? Even in that video, the doctor explains that the problems with MJ's penis are typical for the people with his disease.

How could Jordie miss the fact that MJ was uncircumcized, if he really did see MJ's penis? The Chandler case just looks like a well orchestrated scam. MJ's defense probably would have easily bounced on that in the 2005 trial and thats why the prosecution were so hesitant about using this supposedly accurate description of MJ's penis as evidence. They made a last minute bid, right b4 the jury were about to go into deliberations to show these pictures (after they'd lossed their credibility with jury by suboring perjury and calling Debbie Rowe to the stand and nothing to loose)They obviously did not have much faith in those pictures. Before the trial began they begged the Judge to use all sorts of things as evidence against MJ, including the 1993 settlement (which was refused because MJ's insurance company paid the Chandlers http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf) and prior bad acts(which blew up in prosecution's face); however, they forgot about those supposedly accurate pictures. Please. Pictures didn't match. If it did it would have been Tom Sneddon's smoking gun at the very beginning of the 2005 trial. At the end of the trial when its clear they lost their case, they just wanted to show off MJ's spotted prick. To give the jury something sweet to remeber him by while they deliberated. The pro-prosecution judge refused to allow it for precisely that reason.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 01:37 AM • Reply to This »

• Link "Don't you see Jason is the missing link. I would be more incline to believe Michael had there been no Jason. "

You are wrong.Haven't done your research well. He is no missing link. Jason Francia is not an anonymous victim that just popped out of nowhere in 2005 to shock the world. (media now wants you to believe that) Jason and his mother have been intricately linked to the case since 1993. Everyone, including the prosecution and Mary Fischer knew about him in 1993. He was the Diane Dimond purchased victim. Mary Fischer and everyone with a brain, in 1993, had a lot of reasons for doubting his molestation claims in 1993. Go to google news archives and search for articles between 8/1/1993 and 12/31/1993 with the name 'blanca francia'.

Blanca Francia (Jason’s mom) was on Hard Copy (Diane Dimond‘s show) and in other tabloid magazines telling MJ molestation stories for a fee. She fed the media flames and played a pivotal role in the destruction of MJ's reputation in 1993 (that’s probably why MJ decided to pay her). She even suggested to Diane Dimond, on national TV, that MJ molested her son (Jason). She was quite a vocal and prominent character back then. The police originally did not pay attention to her because she was nothing but tabloid trash. She was being PAID by Diane Dimond to come up with her stories in 1993 (after she was fired in 1991). If her stories were true, she would have reported them to the cops in 1991 (she already lost her job so what was she afraid of?), not to Diane Dimond for money. When in 1993 called to repeat her tabloid stories to a grand jury, she cracked up and admitted she lied for money. Jason himself admitted back then he was coerced by the cops into coming up with his tickling story.

Mary J. Fisher, as a serious journalist, felt no need to mention Jason Francia in her article. She didn’t know the police were so desperate in 1993 they had turned to the tabloids for corroborating evidence. LOL. There was even a PBS documentary called Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Scandal that investigated the danger of the Francias and other tabloid bought ‘witnesses’. You think someone molested your kid and/or you saw someone molesting other boys you go to the cops first, not Diane Dimond for money!

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 10:11 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Believing in MJ's innocence is like believing in Santa Claus, it makes you feel all warm and fuzy, but it is also imaginary. For extortion to work you have to have something to blackmail with, eg David Letterman. Jordan Chandler's father might have been a dubious character, I believe so, but it does not mean something untowards did not occur, and you cannot prove otherwise. Persons like to qoute that infamous tape where the father says - helping the boy is irrelevant to him, but curiously never question why he would want to destroy Michael's career. If it were all about money then Chandler wouldn't have to give a damn about MJ's career, let it sink or swim. However, he wanted to hurt MJ. Permanantly.

Oh, I re-read the Mary Fischer expose, and something jumped out at me. Why did Michael Jackson pay 2.4 million to Blanca Francia? According to Ms Fishcer, Blanca Francia "told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson -- an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible." Curiously Michael Jackson and his lawyers did, hence the pay day! What did Michael Jackson know that the grand jury did not? During the 1995 Diane Sawyer interview with Lisa Marie Presley & Michael Jackson, Diane (a non-tabloid reporter) hinted at the out of court settlement with another child; however, Michael denied this. It came back to bite him in the ass in 2005 when he, and his lawyers finally had to admit: Yes, there was another molestation settlement!

Listen, I don't hate Michael Jackson, and I am not out to bash him, I just think people ought to reseach the cases, and stop calling him a saint, and an angel. I was one that never believed the accusations against him, but since reseaching the cases I now believe in the possibility. I was on Michael Jackson's side, but while reading the court transcripts I found something I did not expect to see: June Chandler under oath saying her son had not spoken to her for 10 YEARS. A son that loved her, and lived with her for 13-14 years of his life suddenly made her persona non grata. That was powerful testimony, and the smoking gun for me. I do not know how you justify that in your mind, but something about it does not sit well with my spirit.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 19:03 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Nobody says MJ is ‘innocent‘. He is definitely guilty of inappropriate relations with children (ironically not Jason or Gavin, only Jordie). He admitted/bragged to it in the Bashir documentary. The question is whether he is guilty of sexually abusing kids, which based on the evidence is not likely. He slept with so many other kids without consequence. Those kids and families continue to defend him. The motives and behavior of the people making the accusations are suspect.

Evan Chandler could extort MJ because he was sleeping with Jordie. That’s a bad situation to put yourself in and then be accused of sexual abuse. The million dollar question is, why did Evan Chandler feel the need to extort MJ for molestation? He could have ruined his career, sent him to prison and got money, etc. the LEGAL WAY. Why risk going to prison for extortion for molestation that did happen. Makes no sense. On tape, Evan admits he doesn’t care about his son. His son is ‘irrelevant to him’, the accusations were all about what he could get for himself, not his son. So you can’t tell me he’s mad at MJ for hurting his son. He wasn’t even involved in his son’s life b4 MJ took interest. He had his own personal vendetta against Jackson that could stem from many reasons such as failing to advance his film career or make him a millionaire celebrity (he was trying to sue MJ again for 60 million and an album EVANSTORY in 1995, so much for being afraid of the media circus and wanting to get on with his life as an excuse for refusing to cooperate with the police)

Jordie is now estranged from BOTH parents. He is suing his father too.http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a0422-05.opn.html He could blame both of his parents for ruining his life regardless of whether or not molestation took place. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=P8iO1wRHegY I think the bigger circumstantial evidence was Jordie’s refusal to testify for the prosecution in 2005. June signed the settlement and testified so that should put to rest claims that the settlement prevents him from testifying. If MJ never molested him and Jordie regrets the whole thing, what other way does he have to show his regret than not testifying in 2005 trial? I don’t think he would legally want to come out and say the whole thing was a lie because that might open him up to lawsuits, perjury charges and might make him even more hated.

Its impossible to prove a negative.If you’ve ever been alone with kids, kids can come back and say you did anything to them and there is no way to disprove it. The only way to defend your innocence is to prove they/ their parents have dubious motivations. Therefore, all people who’ve ever been accused are forever tainted, not just MJ. You can say believing in their innocence is also like believing in Santa Claus. The fact that children are accusing you means you are guilty because ‘nobody lies about molestation‘. Even if you prove your accuser is a con-artist extortonist who has a history of making false accusations, that does not prove you’re innocent. Dangerous line of reasoning. In that case why do we bother with trials, why can’t we convict people based simply on the accusation?

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/31/09 | 23:52 PM • Reply to This »

• Link You are assuming things about the Chandlers that you cannot know. How exactly do you know he loved her for the first 13-14 years of his life. You don't know what Jordie's relationship with his mother was like. Its obvious that Evan Chandler did not love his son, his son accused him of beating him and he is on tape saying he doesn't care about his son. So I don't know what you are talking about as far as the parents are concerned. As if they were a loving and caring family that MJ broke apart. Yeah right.

Again with the Francias that I already addressed. What did MJ know? MJ knew that in 1996 if another child molestation lawsuit was filed against him it would kill his career no matter how ridiculous their claims were. He had many logical reasons to settle it quietly for 2 million. It cost less than the damaging publicity and legal fees that would result from another lawsuit. Point is those people were already interviewed by first Diane Dimond and then the police in '93. No one took them seriously then. Police didn't try to file charges on Jason's behalf, grand jury didn't believe his mother in '93 nor did they believe them again in 2005. Jason's testimony was bizarre and reminded them of Janet Arvizo.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/13/ng.01.html

Go read court transcripts from Francias lawyers. http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/court-transcripts- 4-05-2005. They admit settlement wasn't paid until 1996. 3 yrs. AFTER Francias participate in police investigation and Dimond interview, without filing criminal charges. You don't know if MJ even knew about them when Diane Sawyer interviewed him in 1995, even if he did it was none of her business. Again, in the settlement he admits no wrong doing and points out the damages Francias civil claims would do to his reputation as a reason for paying them and these people with no principles agree to sign it for the money. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 00:31 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Correction to something that you said "Debbie Rowe had nothing to loose". OF COURSE she did, at the time she was in bitter custody battle with Michael Jackson, she wanted to be a part of her children's lives, and Michael was not permitting it because he had sole custody. She testify on his behalf so that he would be lenient with her and the kids. Don't forget Debbie Rowe was irate when MJ took the children out of the country to live in Bahrain without letting her know.

Debbie Rowe thought that she had given up all her perental right, but a judge informed her that was not the case, and after the 3rd molestation case broke Debbie wanted her children back. That is why she turned on the prosecution and testified for Michael Jackson. So she would not have to go through a bitter custody battle.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 20:48 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "Jason had nothing to gain from going to court. He was a 24 year old man on the witness stand crying. Grown men don't cry because they feel like it."

Of course Jason Francia had everything to gain from continuing to lie. He had 2.4M reasons & the possibility of his mother being criminally charged. I would be crying too if I thought I would have to give up the money & the lie would come to light.

Obviously the jury did not believe him with all those crocodile tears--in fact during the break someone in the media reported to the judge that they believe the jury were outside mimicking him & laughing.

His tears did not

Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:08 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Great article on sexuality, I'm a musician, a reasonably successful one, meaning, I pay my bills with music related services. I'm probably a pervert, but I'm not falling into any of the above described categories of strange sexualities as far as I can tell. Here's what I have to say... MJ was a great performer, like everyone else in his family. He was a very twisted individual and he shouldn't be canonized as some kind of musical saint, he very likely did horrible things to himself and young boys. Furthermore Quincy Jones wrote and arranged those tracks we all danced to, not Michael Jackson. MJ was the delivery system for Quincy's music. Since Quincy didn't sleep with little boys, it's more newsworthy to talk about MJ. If you doubt my claims, research Quincy Jones, I think you'll find that he is the common thread among a great number of outstanding musical recordings and compositions.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/21/09 | 16:29 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I have to answer to the last anonymous poster (who didn't have the decency to post his name along with his accusations): - I don't know why you mention you're a musician, but since you did, I'll mention I'm a law student. - For a musician, you exhibit huge ignorance on the subject. No, Quincy Jones did NOT write the songs Michael Jackson performed. You REALLY need to do some research and in any case stop posting factually wrong information for all to see. Most of those songs were written by Michael himself (just to name a few examples: Billie Jean, Beat it, Wanna be Starting Something, Bad, Dirty Diana, Black or White, Will you be There, Heal the World, They Don't Care About Us). Some were written by other people (Thriller, written by Rod Temperton, Man in the Mirror, written by Siedah Garrett and Glen Ballard). So, not only do I doubt your claims, but I call them lies. Either that or incredible misinformation presented as truth. - Michael Jackson was "a very twisted individual"?, " he very likely did horrible things to himself and young boys"?. Really?. Would you by any chance care to provide a source or an argument for those kind of accusations?. I think you've just been reading to many tabloids. Michael Jackson clearly suffered from body dysmorphic disorder - a psychological disorder in which people become obsessed with imagines or minimal physical flaws and think themselves to be extremely ugly - , from vitiligo - a skin disease which makes the skin lose it's pigmentation, and yes, it's in blotches and not even, Michael indeed had blotches until the end of his life) and from discoid lupus, an autoimmune disease which in that form (as opposed to systemic lupus) affects the skin but not the rest of the organs. All of that explains the changes in his looks over the years. Sadly, some people, rather than inform themselves, choose to judge, based on less than reliable information.

Cristina (not verified) | 10/28/09 | 10:43 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Anonymous,

Do you only read pro-Jackson material? Have you ever read the articles (all) published by Maureen Orth, or Diane Dimond? Maureen Orth is the late widow of Tim Russert, and as you know Tim's reputation as a journalist is solid. I am not pulling information from News of the World, or the National Enquirer which can be called tabloids. I am reading and listening to investigative journalists. Honestly why would they stake they reputation on unfounded claims?

I am a fair minded person. I do plan on eventually reading Moonwalk, and Michael Jackson Conspiracy, and I have read the Mary A Fishcer report (3 times). I have read the exposes on the pro-MJ websites like the Floacist. What I want to know is do you read what I read? Do you not see that they make good points?

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/01/09 | 12:18 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I haven't read Diane Dimond's trash and don't plan to. However, I have read the Vanity Fair articles a couple of times and I find them criminally biased. For instance, in the 2004 article Maureen Orth actually believes in the prosecution's conspiracy theory. She believe Janet Arvizos story that she was kidnapped and held prison at Neverland. WOW. At the trial, those claims were proven to be ridiculous. Thats my smoking gun on the credibililty of Maureen Orth's 'investigations'. She writes as truth any outlandish story an ex-business associate tells her (ie. Voodoo story) without any evidence, just gossip/rumor. Doesn’t stop and think maybe person telling her stories has an agenda because she herself has one.

Her articles are overly long and spend most of the time focusing on Michael Jackson's bad appearance, his debt, media business, and drug addiction, as if thats evidence Jackson is a pedophile. She's just trying to make him look as bad as possible and doesn't provide any evidence toward MJ's guilt other than the stories the accusers tell. Orth's last piece was truly criminal because it whitewashed what had just been proven about the Arvizos in court. Instead of acknowledging how wrong her 2004 article was she makes excuses for Janet Arvizo. She ignores the inconsistencies in the kids stories and attacks Messerau for 'treating them like criminals'. Well if you want to send a man to jail for 20 years these 'kids' (big teenagers 15,14, 18) should know how to tell the truth to a jury about what did or did not happen to them.

Also, something Orth said in her last article that really pissed me off, was that MJ would never associate with the Arvizos if he didn't have an ulterior motive. My god. She totally disregards all of the humanitarian work that MJ has done for the past 30 years and all the thousands of sick, needy children that visit Neverland. MJ was a good humanitarian. These allegations would have more weight if they acknowledged that MJ was a nice HUMAN BEING(not a crazy monster from outerspace) who betrayed people's trust because of a secret compulsion to molest boys despite his good works. Instead, they're just running smear campaigns and have to work to present the jury and public with an alternate version of reality, where MJ is a demon who humps mannequins, licks boys heads like a cat,etc., and kidnaps people to forces them to say nice things about him. LOL.

Despite her bias, I like reading them because it shows the accusers side of the story (at least I hope Maureen Orth isn't just making stuff up) which still doesn‘t add up. I found it interesting how she tries to excuse Evan Chandler. She explains why he demanded money before going to the police. What kind of parent doesn't want their son's molester to go to jail? Isn’t that illegal? She claims he didn't want the media attention. Sure. Why'd he file the 1993 lawsuit instead of laying low and waiting for the police to conclude their investigation? liar. She also claims their was a conspiracy of Jackson fans in 1993 to harass his family. I believe this. She said he settled because the pressure was too high on him and his family. Yeah right. How does he explain his SECOND lawsuit in 1995 in order to get 60 mil and an album deal? More media attention. He's obviously not afraid of raising a ruckus when it comes to getting money, he's just afraid of dealing with the cops in order to put his son's supposed molester in prison. Also, Orth cites that slanderous book, MJ was my lover. MJ successfully sued the author for slander. Yet Orth believes its okay to cite this book as evidence. At one point she misrepresents Wade Robson’s testimony. That’s not what he actually said in the court transcripts.

What Orth's 'investigation' demonstrates is that MJ had a lot of enemies stemming from his business dealings, who Orth liked to associate with and get as many sensational stories as possible from. Many people wanted MJ to go to jail so he could loose his stake in the Beatles catalog. Aphrodite Jones claimed that MJ believed his enemies at Sony were paying some of the prosecution witnesses. That would make logical sense to me in the case of the Francias, and other tabloid witnesses who already have a history of taking money for molestation stories. Although there is no evidence for it. It makes more sense than Orth's idiotic claim that MJ paid Jordie Chandler not show up. If that was the case why didn't he remember to pay June Chandler? And oh yah, I thought MJ was about to go bankrupt so how can he afford to guarantee that Jordie could 'write his own ticket' if he didn't testify.

You admit you haven’t read Aphrodite Jones book. It’s the only book that uses the actual court transcripts. Its not only about MJ its also about the lies of the mainstream media and their financial incentive in perpetuating the myth of MJ as a crazy pedophile. They stood to make billions out of MJ’s prison adventures reports. They’d already made billions off of ‘Whako jacko’ stories. No one would publish Jones book because it was ‘pro-Jackson’. She self-published. People like Diane Dimond have made careers for themselves off of MJ’s downfall. Maureen Orth had nothing to loose in slandering MJ and her bosses probably encouraged her to do it since it was mainstream media policy. Basic example is compare the sensational media reports about MJ’s health right after he died from ‘credible’ reporters to the actual autopsy results and the evidence in the This is it film. They are liars and have been lying about him or years.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 02:30 AM • Reply to This »

• Link To answer you directly, I read many things (Fischer, Orth, Jones, many 1993 newspaper articles, websites, etc.) and do my best to get to the truth of what I am reading. Notice when I use the Floacist I never quote anything any blogger says, I point you to the TRANSCRIPTS and COURT DOCUMENTS they post to make their points.

The pro-jackson sources tend to be more grounded in facts than anti-jackson sources. Anti-Jackson sources just use spin/imagination and the accusers stories to make their points, even though the accusers actions/behavior contradict their stories.

I pointed out many of the biases and half-truths in Orth's pieces. Orth doesn't really contradict anything Fischer says about the Chandlers. She just leaves them out or tries to excuse them. She completely ignored the Arvizos credibility problems and blamed it on the 'Jackson operatives'. As if its normal for a family to con and cheat so many people. Anonymous (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 03:22 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Althought this article is about Michael Jackson's sexual proclivities I would like to digress for a moment. You mentioned the "the sensational media reports about MJ’s health right after he died from ‘credible’ reporters to the actual autopsy results." I do not know how accurate those autopsy results are as there has been no official confirmation from the coroner's office, also the reports states that Michael Jackson was 5.9', but his mugshot has him at 5.11'. In This Is It he looks closer to the latter.

A good investigative journalist, or anyone seeking the truth looks to corrobarate the claims of their sources. I believe Michael Jackson had a serious drug problem, everyone backs up the other. Grace the Nanny, Deiter Weisner the former manager, Brian Oxman, Arnold Klien, Dr. Susan Etok etc, etc, etc. The man himself even admitted this during his 1993 molestation statement, and further confirmed it on his Blood On the Dancefloor album in the song Morphine. What alot of people think is, the autopsy results showed major organs like the liver, heart and kidneys were reletively healthy, and take that to mean he was not an addict. I take that to mean he was not an addict 365 days a year, but rather had lapses of sobriety. MJ definetely had substance abuse problems which contributed to his early demise, it is not uncommon for someone in his profession. Take a look athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBDCkjeGrI where he takes about being under the influence of pain medication.

Back to sexual molestation allegations. It is funny the one kid I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Michael Jackson was Gavin Arvizo. However, Micheal Jackson's best friend/dermatologist for 20 years ratted him out recently on TMZ. Arnold Klien said Michael Jackson called wine Jesus Juice and gave it to kids, (he also said alot of other things that I will mention at a later date). As you know Gavin said MJ called wine Jesus juice and served it to him in soda cans. Here you have one of Michael Jackson's inner circle friends backing up this claim by Gavin. Interesting don't you think? You cannot say Arnie Klien is lying, or he is a disgruntled ex-friend because up until the time of Michael Jackson's death they were close. People came and went out of MJ's life but Arnold Klien was a constant, what he says cannot and should not be dismissed as trash.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/07/09 | 19:50 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Never said he did not have a substance abuse problem. What I said is that media reports right after he died, claimed the autopsy results would prove he was emaciated and on death's door, stomach full of pills etc. They claimed he could never pull off the tour because he was too weak and in bad health. They greatly exaggerated his condition. They were proven false.

And you are a lying about the wine claims. Again go watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=GJxdW6GJ93s. Where does he say MJ gave kids wine? Not what Arnie Klein said. He never saw MJ giving wine to kids. He only read about it in the papers during the trial. If you read Aphrodite Jones book you would know that even prosecution witnesses testified they never saw MJ giving wine to kids either. Everyone knew MJ drank and he gave wine to his adult visitors. No evidence, not even from prosecution witnesses he gave it to kids. Who ever argued that MJ didn't call wine Jesus Juice? Everyone in MJ's inner circle knew he called wine Jesus Juice, including Klein. That actually works against Gavin's claims. He could have learned about him calling wine Jesus Juice, simply by hearing him talking about it to other adults.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 14:21 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Another thing. A flight attendant (prosecution witness) testified that MJ drank wine in soda cans during flights with Gavin and his children, although she didn't see him giving wine to Gavin or any other kid. He actually drank from the cans to try to hide the fact that he was drinking. Its possible that MJ didn't fool Gavin on that flight. Gavin (being the shrewd kid everyone says he was) knew he was drinking wine from the soda cans. Thats why he was able to claim MJ gave him wine in soda cans. Same thing is possible with Jesus Juice.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 14:42 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Well, I found Arnie Klein's interview with Harvey Levin very interesting. I am not the kind to gravitate towards tabloids, but in this case they landed one of MJ's inner circle pals I couldn't resist. Please tell me you are not buying that ridiculous explanation about peeing in cups as the reason Jordie could ACCURATELY described Michael Jackson,s penis. It is a bit convenient and hard to swallow just like the sodium amythal thing. When are people going to realize that the path of least resistent is the truth. Jordie ACCURATELY described MJ's genetalia because something unholy took place between them, and the $20,000000.00 settlement conveniently took place only after the pictures were taken. Why is that so difficult to fathom? The whole explanation sounds so farfetched.

Michael Jackson said lies runs sprints, but the truth is a marathon. If that is the case then by his own definition Jordan Chandler is telling the truth. It has been nearly 20 years, and there is still no changing in Jordan's testimony. Furthermore, his uncle has written a book, "All that Glitters", and his little sister, Lily, has also written a book. The behaviour is very extreme if it were a lie. I liked Michael Jackson, but at some point you have to examine the cold hard facts and wake up to the truth.

Granted there is no hardcore DNA evidence in this case, but as social workers cited, there soldom is.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 09:36 AM • Reply to This »

• Link You have just shown your true colors. Fact is I caught you lying not once but TWICE in order to try to prove your point. 1st about what that dr. who was present for the strip search and second about what Arnie Klein said. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Also, was Arnie Klein present for the strip search in 1993? Did he also see Jordie Chandler's drawings and do a comparison to know if it matched? Did the interviewer see Jordie Chandler's picture and MJ's penis to do comparisons? Neither of them really know if the pictures matched. Interviewer claimed the pictures matched and Klein has no way of knowing if they did or did not match so he came up with that ridiculous story for the interviewer. He wasn't there and neither was the interviewer. He admit, like most of MJ's 'friends', he had little contact with him when he was going through his problems. So what does he know about the case?

I have already addressed this line of nonsense. How can you claim you had all that oral sex and masturbation with MJ to the point where you can identify blemishes on his penis and yet not know that he was uncircumcized? He claimed he had too much interaction with MJ's penis to not see that. At 13 he was old enough to know the difference between circumcized and uncircumcized. Makes the 1993 case look like a scam. They used their knowledge of MJ's vitiligo to claim their were blemishes on his penis, yet didn't know he was uncircumcized. Boy did not see penis.

As for prosecution wanting to use it as evidence. TIMING IS EVERYTHING.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269/ Go read this article slowly and carefully and try to use some critical thinking skills about what the prosecution says the pictures show. What I have told you so many times in this blog. What MJ's defense told the judge in explanation for not using the pictures. Go read this article.http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0328051jacksonpast1.html. Go read top of thishttp://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have more than proven my case. You are back tracking. Soon I'm just gonna have copy and paste my previous posts.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:35 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Too slow. I might have to break it down for you. You want to prove to a jury MJ is a pedophile. Which evidence are you most likely to beg the judge to use first.

A. The 1993 Settlement documents to prove that MJ admitted guilt by paying. (only MJ's insurance company paid. LOL) B. "Prior bad acts" (only we want to use witnesses who say they saw MJ molesting boys, not the boys themselves cuz they might say otherwise. LOL.) or

C. Proof that Jordan Chandler accurately described MJ's penis in 1993.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:44 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the MSNBC article. So here is key qoute.

"They then had the accuser draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture contained a blemish that was unique to Jackson’s anatomy."

They're not even claiming the boy accurately described MJ's genitalia. They claim he described ONE BLEMISH JACKSON. what about the rest? How many other blemishes did he draw that kinda sorta might match but don't. Then theirs the false cicumcision claim. Please. Jury bout to go into deliberations, so lets give them something nice to remember Jackson by.

"But defense attorney Robert Sanger called the photographs an “unfair surprise” and said prosecutors had “not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic in advance.”" Judge agreed with Defense.

Maybe they would have avoided this successful argument from the defense if they asked to used the pictures EARLIER!!! They were just bluffing. I'm calling your bluff.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the MSNBC article." Well aren't we snippy.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:32 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I am just reading your post, so no I have not read the links. I also do not appreciate you calling me a liar, just like you read articles to prove your point, I read articles to prove mine. I report what I read. I do not know what you do for a living, but I doubt that you are an investigative reported; therefore, like me you get your information online. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/13/earlyshow/leisure/books/main64... - Watch the video too http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855

I am a skeptic, I do not believe something because it is on television, or the print media unless it can be sustantiated. I do not believe the investigators (journalists & law enforcement) are/were picking on Michael Jackson, I honestly believe they were trying to get to the truth, and belived what they were reporting. If there is another truth then Michael Jackson should have filled in the blanks. You have to look at this from the point of view of someone seeking answers. I go in search of the truth and the ONLY investigative reporter I found took Michael Jackson's side is Mary Fischer. Compare that to every news agency not just the 2005 trial, but the 1993 as well, and the balance of power is skewed. Anyone would find that alarming. Aprodite Jones did change her mind.

For what it is worth settling the 1993 molestation case was the biggest mistake of Michael Jackson's & Jordan Chandler's lives.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:20 PM • Reply to This »

• Link The difficulty in arguing the 1993 case is, it never went to trial: criminal or civil. The incrimating evidence like the photos, and God knows what else have been sealed. All we have to go on is, what has been leaked to the media, also a star witness has died. So, what it boils down to is circumstantial evidence like June Chandler's testimony, and Evan Chandler's tape recording. You also have to consider that Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I know you are going to tell me that evidence from the 93 case was introduced in the 2005 case under the prior bad acts law, but lets not get carried away. This was not Jordan Chandler's case, but Gavin Arvizo's. The jury was asked to convict, or acquit on whether Gavin was/was not molested, not Jordie.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 12:48 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Who's choice was it that it never went to trial? (hint, hint, the family's name starts with a C.)

Why do you think they didnt want it to go to trial? (hint, hint, they might be exposed as extortionists.. better to take that money and run.)

Oh yah. You are probably telling another lie about Lily Chandler's book. Never heard of it. Unless you can post a link, I'm assuming you're lying again.

Also, I don't know what kind of uncle wants to sell their nephew's molestation story for money. Thats pretty sick.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:04 PM • Reply to This »

• Link These are questions I have always wanted to ask a diehard Jackson fan. Please I am curious. What makes you so sure that he is innocent? Why so quick to dismiss the accusations of the 3 little boys? Had it been the guy next door would you be so convinced? Do you believe that because he was an humanitarian that he could not be a pedophile? Have you considered that he gave away all that money to ease a guilty conscience, or to over-compensate for that guilty conscience? How long have you been a MJ fan? What would it take to convince you otherwise? If you saw the photos with your eyes, and read the genetalia describtion would you then be convinced?

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/09/09 | 16:30 PM • Reply to This »

• Link YAWN. I gotta better question for you. What makes you so convinced that these accusations are true when I have successfully refuted all of your arguments?

Its turning into a religion for you where you are just convinced that "the child is telling the truth no matter what" even if their story makes no sense and keeps changing, their parents are con-artists, and they refuse to testify in a court of law.

"3 little boys". You're still a little boy at 13? You're a little boy at 16, and even 24? More dubious spin. Imagine if we were talking about 13 year old girls.

People's implicit homophobia makes Jackson's accusers 'little boys'. Sorta what this article is about too.

This mass hysteria was what really provided the transformative moment for Aphrodite Jones.She watched Gavin's original police interview and was supposed to believe that a 13 year old boy (who would turn 14 in just a few months) did not know what an ejaculation is.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:27 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Also, if it were the guy next door, his NOT GUILTY verdict would probably let him go on with his life. There wouldn't be all these people claiming to know better than a jury still calling him a pedophile.

And how do you explain the COURT documents I posted before where it explains that MJ's insurance company paid all that money?

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 15:39 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Q1) Was Michael Jackson a Pedophile?

A) No. Q2) Did J. Michael Bailey ever meet or come into contact with Michael Jackson?

A) No.

Q3) Would you want J. Michael Bailey working for you after reading this peice of nonsence?

A) Most probably not.

Seany (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 19:33 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Remember OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial, yet in the civil trial he ordered to pay the Goldman compensatory damages of $8.5 million and punitive damages of $25 million.

In a criminal trial MJ would have won because the DA would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that MJ was a guilty person who really committed the crime.

However, in a civil litigation the standard is very low. The plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff.

In the 1993 case, Jordan Chandler decided not to testify in the criminal case when learning he could receive money in a civil case.

The fact is Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case.

MJ decided that he did want to go through any long drawn out trial which would have cost him more in attorney fees, cost, etc. than to settle. MJ would have lost even more money trying this case instead of continuing with his career making music and touring, which brought in more money than he settled the case for.

Maybe this decision was wrong since those of you who don't understand the legal process have assumed he is guilty.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 21:52 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Remember OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial, yet in the civil trial he ordered to pay the Goldman compensatory damages of $8.5 million and punitive damages of $25 million.

In a criminal trial MJ would have won because the DA would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that MJ was a guilty person who really committed the crime. Here’s the reasonable doubt: The fact that Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case. Jordan did accurately described discloration, but so was the rest of MJ’s body.

In a civil litigation the standard is very low. The plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff.

Jordan Chandler refused to testify in the criminal case when learning he could receive money in a civil case. It could be said that this was his objection all along since he could have done both, that is, put Michael in jail and take his money.

MJ decided to settle the case because he did want to go through any long drawn out trial which would have cost him more in attorney fees, cost, etc. than to settle. MJ would have lost even more money trying this case instead of continuing with his career making music and touring, which brought in more money than he settled the case for.

Maybe this decision was wrong since those of you who don't understand the legal process have assumed he is guilty.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 13:54 PM • Reply to This »

• Link @Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 13:54 PM

"In a criminal trial MJ would have won because the DA would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that MJ was a guilty person who really committed the crime...... Here’s the reasonable doubt: The fact that Jordan did not accurately describe Michael genitals. Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised, which is not the case. Jordan did accurately described discloration, but so was the rest of MJ’s body."

You are really over reaching, and testing the boundaries of common sense. YOU DO NOT KNOW IF HE WOULD HAVE WON. You say it with such certainty when you should not be. Jordan did accurately describe the marking on MJ's penis, he was able to describe in great detail the placement and the shapes of sploches. As for circumcision let me debunk that, an erected penis looks circumcised.

I watched the Havey levin/Arnold Klein interview. Harvey specifically said the police report stated that Jordie did describe accurately Michael's penis. A POLICE REPORT, NOT THE ABRAMS REPORT. If you have evidence contrary to a POLICE REPORT bring it on.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 17:47 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It sounds like you need to do your own research instead of depending on TMZ, et al the trashy tabloids news. I suggest you search: Evan Chandlers phone conversation with Dave Schwartz. This is a taped recorded conversation leading up to the 1993 molestion charges against Michael Jackson. Also go to Wikipedia, they seem to be accurate on both the 1993 and 2005 molestion cases. This should clear up any doubts you may have about MJ innocense.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 21:18 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Been there done that, did nothing for me. By the way I read Mary K Fischer 3 times.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 19:30 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Geraldine Hughes, the then sole legal secretary of Barry Rothman who represented Jordan Chandler, comes forth to set the record straight about what really happened behind the scenes in the 1993 child molestation case against Michael Jackson. Ms. Hughes states she witness MJ being set-up.

I suggest you read Ms. Hughes book "Redemption" and/or view her interview on Bill O"Reilly atwww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110184,00.html.

Furthermore, the police who investigated stated they found... GASP... straight adult porno. How they tried to tie that in to pedophilia is ridiculous. One person put it best when they said "What we found out is that Michael Jackson is a 49 year old who drinks wine, watches porn, and has a bad back. Who knew?" In other words absolutely nothing incriminating. Investigating his accuser’s lives is far more interesting. Both of them had parents who had criminal histories of suing for false claims in the past.

If you don't believe these reliable sources then you must have witness MJ in the act.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 22:12 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I would like to recant my previous postings on calling Michael Jackson a pedophile, that was wrong of me. My opinion is not the law, and he was never proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Someone called me out on it, and they were right. However, I still have my doubts to his innocence.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/12/09 | 18:19 PM • Reply to This »

• Link @Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM "I'm calling your bluff." Well I see your bluff, and I raise you 3. See my response beneath your 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM posting.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/13/09 | 23:59 PM • Reply to This »

• Link @Anonymous (not verified) | 11/11/09 | 14:55 PM You should also google Terry George Michael Jackson. Fascinating stuff. "I know it might be hard for you to carefully read the.....article." If you have any questions feel free to ask, and I will be more that happy to explain.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/14/09 | 22:38 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I find it fascinating that even after the alledgedly lewd telephone contact with MJ, that Terry George continued calling him until he racked up a big phone bill before his parents' phone was turned off. George's subsequent collect calls to MJ were refused. Years later when MJ was in the UK George tried to resuscitate their friendship, but admitted he felt rejected when MJ's handlers brushed him off.

I wouldn't want to continue a friendship with someone whom I thought said or did something inappropriate to me, so I tend to believe he is just striking back because he got the brush off.

Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 16:36 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Actually you are a liar. You lie about what you read/seen. You've done it not one but THREE times to try to prove your points. I was willing to give you a pass the first time. I assumed maybe you misunderstood what the Doctor said about the strip search in the 1st video you posted. After that, you deliberately lied about Dr. Klein's TMZ interview and I caught you. Again you lied about Lily Chandler writting a book (unless you can post a link for this book, I'm assuming you're lying again).

You have failed to defend any of your claims. You posted a bunch of articles on 11/11. What do those articles you posted have to do with anything? How do they prove any of your points? All And I've came accross that silly statement analysis article before. What does that prove? All it shows is someone's got a lot of time on their hands and not enough sense. I have defended all of my points by addressing all of your arguments directly. You can't do that with mine.

Your other claim about investigative reporters is lame. How many 'investigative reporters' (who actually conducted their own investigation not relying on someone else's) were there in all? What exactly did they investigate? An intelligent person should be critical of everything they read. Its not enough that you can find an article that says what you want to hear (ie. that TMZ reporter claims the pictures matched therefore you believe him becuase you want to)

Its not enough that Aphrodite Jones claims MJ is innocent. What are her sources?They happen to be trial trascripts, DCF interview transcripts, legal evidence, jury foreman, etc. What are Maureen Orth's sources? They happen to be interviews with the Arvizos, Chandlers, Tom Sneddon (who has acted more like the Arvizos and Chandlers lawyer, than a prosecutor over the years) and 'anonymous business associates'. Imagine if Aphrodite Jones wanted to write a pro-Jackson book claiming he was innocent and all she did was interview Michael Jackson, his family, his lawyer, and friends. She'd be laughed out of the park. Yet for some reason Maureen Orth gets away with doing that for the accusers and calls it an investigation.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 15:55 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Also, another claim you made is that authorities said the pictures matched. I'm going to post that MSNBC article for you AGAIN.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7993269/ Careful reading is important.

And for your information, in 1993, it was widely reported in the news media that the picture DID NOT MATCH. Go to google news archive and search for articles between 11/1993-2/1994. So much for consistency from the news media.

Something was seriously wrong with those pictures in 1993. Thats why they didn't arrest and charge MJ on the spot after the strip search. Thats why prosecutors presented their evidence in front of 3 grand jurys and failed to get an indictment. Thats probably why the Chandlers chose to settle for ONLY 15 million dollars instead of going to court. (other way of look at things since it takes 2 parties to settle and Chandlers could have gotten a lot more if they won in court)

Even in that MSNBC article prosecutors do not claim the boys description was an exact match to the photos. Their focusing on ONE 'unique blemish' not the full description. Wikepedia's claim that there were some similarities and some key differences seems to be the closest to the truth based on all the evidence.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 16:10 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Also, you are bluffing when you claim with absolute certainty that MJ was guilty because Jordan Chandler accurately described his penis. Not even the prosecutors made that claim to a judge in 2005.

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/09 | 16:20 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Hmmm if I am to understand you & the article you pointed out 3 times correctly Jordan Chandler described "a unique feature of ... (Jackson’s) anatomy.” Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said "it would show that Jackson’s relationships with boys were “not casual.” By its very definition the word unique means uncommon and rare. For Jordan Chandler to be so explicit at the very least shows inappropiate behaviour happened. Nowhere in the article did I read there was a mismatched, but I am not calling you a liar.

As for Lily Chandler's book I did read that somewhere online if I should come across it again you betcha I will post it.

The links that I sent to you especially the Msnbc & CBS ones were to explain how the molestation occured, and what triggered Evan Chandler's suspicion. Mary Fischer herself said it was a particular weekend stay by Jackson at Evan's house that the relationship between him and MJ broke down. The articles explained why. Am I lying here as well?

I have always believed that pedophilia is not learnt, but more a matter of bio-chemistry. Therefore, Michael Jackson was not going to wakeup at the age of 35 with a sudden inkling for pubescent males, it would have had revelations earlier, hence Terry George. Terry George is a British millionaire (no need to sell stories to the tabloids) who claims a 19 year old Jackson called him (he was 12 at the time), and proceeded to have a sexually graphic conversation with him about how he was masturbating himself. Terry George is on Youtube, and you can google him as well, then come back and call me a liar again.

As for Aphrodite Jones, I don't trust her. She was front and centre of the lynch mob, and now she is in tears watching TII. How gullible does she think sensible people are. I will not say anymore on AJ because it calls for speculation.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 18:54 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It appears Evan Chandler has committed suicide by gunshot.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 20:10 PM • Reply to This »

• Link With the sad and untimely deaths of Evan Chandler, and Michael Jackson hopefully soon all the speculations will come to an end. Maybe, just maybe the final truth will be revealed. I just hope people have the stomach for it. May they rest in peace.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/17/09 | 21:23 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Common sense would tell you that if Jordie Chandler really did see Michael Jackson's penis he would have known that MJ was uncircumcized, not circumcized. Even, if he didn't notice MJ was uncircumcized, he still failed to accurately identify all the marks on MJ's penis. Also, the point I was trying to make with that MSNBC article is that prosecutors were grasping at wind to try to prove their point. Jordie did not even give a fully accurate description MJ's penis. They were claiming Jordie only accurately described only ONE 'unique blemish on MJ's penis'. Come on, is this blemished shaped like a star? Think about how idiotic that is, considering the fact that they are admitting their were other spots on MJ's penis that Jordie Chandler did not correctly describe and also there's the false circumcision claim. That is bizzarely impossible that boy happend to remember only one blemish and not all the other details. Basically police told the boy to draw MJ's penis and he drew for them a spotted penis. Walla there are spots on MJ's penis justs like their are spots from vitiligo on the rest of his body, however he also happens to be uncircumcized contrary to the boys claims. Prosecutors think one of the spots look like a spot Jordie drew (highly subjective). They wanted to try to use that as evidence, however weak it may be. At the end of the trial they just wanted to shock and gross the jury out.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 02:14 AM • Reply to This »

• Link As for Terry George, he was 13 at the time and MJ was 19. They were BOTH teenagers. Even he said MJ was not a pedophile, just a confused guy stuck in childhood. Back then they were both teenagers and MJ was immature for his age as he always is. They probably both were talking dirty on the phone as teenage boys tend to do stuff like that. Terry George never even claimed MJ was going after him sexaully (this is an important distinction from what the Chandlers and Arvizos claimed) , he just let the conversation get to a point where it became inappropriate because MJ was an adult, not Terry George's peer so he can't talk about sex with him. I never tried to argue that MJ was totally innocent or that his behavior with children was not inapproriate. He obviously viewed children as his peers as this incident with Terry George demonstrated. It doesn't prove MJ has a sexual interest in young boys, all does is support the theory of MJ's regression.

More telling is the fact that during this period in his life MJ was also dating Tatum O'neal who was 12/13 when he was 19/20. He claimed Tatum came on to him sexually and nobody has ever been disturbed by the age between those two. Can you explain why this relationship never raised eybrows. I think its more shady than Terry George. Is it because the common assumption has always been that MJ was gay? He could only molest young boys, not young girls, eventhough if you want to claim MJ was robbing the craddle back then there's more evidence that he was doing it to Tatum O'neal and not to Terry George.

Theres a ton of evidence to support MJ's heterosexuality. They found lots of heterosexual porn in his house and Lisa Marie Presley has always stated that their relationship was very sexual.

As for his obssession with children around this time, MJ also became obssessed with Quincy Jone's 9 year old daughter during this time period in his life when he was 20. In QJ's 2001 autobiography he said MJ was very close to his daughter because they understood each other and had a lot of things in common. His wife was stunned to discover the girl made 91 long distance phone calls to MJ while he was on tour. She was a little girl, not a little boy. What do you make of that? It wasn't only boys. If MJ continued doing this with little girls he probably would have gotten into trouble a lot sooner, or maybe not since people like to believe him to be gay. Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 03:04 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Just curious. Did you know about Terry George before I brough him up? You see I found out about him 2 months ago while researching MJ. I think Michael Jackson's fans think that people just like to hate on MJ for no reason.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 14:34 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Now maybe you could help me out with something. Wasn't Michael Jackson suppose to be dating Stephanie Mills around the time you said he was dating Tatum O'neal? Incidentally which is around the time of Terry George.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 14:40 PM • Reply to This »

• Link you guys are all stupid, Michael Jackson was a STRAIGHT man and never molested anyone. he had many girlfriends and was married, you guys are just all jealous of him

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/19/09 | 10:10 AM • Reply to This »

• Link i understand people not liking his music, everybody has their own taste, but i hoestly think people do hate him for no reason. people just love to hear what ever is entertaining to their ears. who ever is reading this article PLEASE DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD THEY ARE SAYING. he was never sexually aroused by anyone of the same sex or any children. i think this article is so pointless because no one should even be talking about it

Anonymous (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 18:24 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It seems we have found a common ground, the article is trash. I originally thought it was clever and insightful, but has since re-read it and it is based on tabloids for sources, and things that have since been disputed.

I have my own theory and it is much better.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:35 AM • Reply to This »

• Link No he wasn't serious about Stephanie Mills. He didn't spend a lot of time with her. She claims she had a crush on him. He spent more time with Tatum O'Neal and even wrote about her in his autobiography. Even Taraborelli dedicated a chapter to MJ's close relationship with Tatum O'Neal in his biography.

And I watched a documentary called Michael Jackson's secret childhood a while back where they interviewed Terry George. In it Terry George pointed out that the sexaul part of his conversation with MJ was just a small one time part of hours long conversations that went on for months. The media decided to pick up on it and blow out of proportion to try to make it look like MJ was a pedophile abusing him.

Also that documentary came out while MJ was on trial and they were trying hard to make it look like MJ was a pedophile. It actually had the opposite effect on me because his relationships with kids go way way back and have been very public. Why can't Tom Sneddon who'd find any other accusers to corroborate the Chandlers and Arvizos stories? Pedophiles, specifically the preferential boy-lovers that Diane Dimond claimed MJ matched the profile of ALWAYS have hundreds of victims and almost always have child pornography. Are all the other kids lying to protect MJ? Only the Chandlers and Arvizos with parents who happen to be con-artists are telling the truth.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 21:56 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I also watched the Michael Jackson secret childhood 2-3 months ago, and I thought it is disturbing.

I tend to believe Stephanie Mills.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:39 AM • Reply to This »

• Link And I agree with the anonymous poster. People do hate MJ. Its there right to do so. However, they can't make stuff up as their reasons for hating him and expect to be taken seriously. Chincilla has failed to make a case for MJ being a pedophile. I have sucessfully refuted each and everyone of his/her claims. However, its his/her right to believe whatever wants to believe regardless of the evidence.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 22:24 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Now I never said that I hated MJ, rather I like him. I like his music, his humanitarian and his love for his children is endearing, but he had a corrupt side. Practically everyone he crossed paths with ended up in court. No need to guess my gender I am female.

I have tried to make you see why people believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and they are not just pulling this stuff out of their behinds.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:48 AM • Reply to This »

• Link The truth seems to be making headway among some sources. For the first time I found a media source that admits the settlement came from MJ's insurance company. I already posted court documents that prove this fact, however, the mainstream media has always chosen to ignore that fact in their reporting, until now. The truth is slowly emmerging and MJ will be vindicated.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/18/jackson.accuser.suicide/inde...

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 23:05 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Also, this FACT pulls the rug from under MJ haters (it seems to be a cult all on its own hmm...) who for more than a a decade claimed MJ is a pedophile because he 'bought their silence' or 'he admitted guilt by paying'. Anyone one still making those claims is a true idiot.

MJ haters now have nothing left to stand on, other than the fact that accusations were made against MJ and they choose to beleive the accusations out of their own personal faith in the accusers.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/20/09 | 23:26 PM • Reply to This »

• Link It is not just a personal faith in the accusers. A belief that the police department would not go after the most powerful celebrity on the planet ( at the time 1993) without being damn sure that they had dot every "i" and cross every "t".

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 02:53 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Correction Chinchilla, police chose not to go after MJ in 1993 when he was the most powerful celebrity on the planet. They never had enough evidence to file charges against him. They had been investigating him since August of 1993 and were never able to get an indictment. Sneddon kept the case open for 6 years after the Chandlers ran off in the hopes that someone anyone will come foward to make accusations. It never happened. They didn't go after him until 2003 when he had long fallen from grace, and was widely regarded as 'Wacko Jacko' and a crazy pedophile by the media and the general public. And the case they brought against him was an embarrassment to the legal system. They would have never dreamed of bringing a case like that against anyone but 'wako jacko'.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 13:11 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Also, if a family made claims like that against anyone, I think its the responsibility of the police to do a thorough investigation. However, the police investigated MJ for years and still could never file charges against him. Even in June of 1995, when MJ and Lisa Marie did an interview with Diane Sawyer claiming that he'd been cleared, Sneddon popped out and said no the case is still open and they are STILL investigating MJ. My god, they've investigating the man already for TWO YEARS and could not file charges. All of this is because MJ is a famous celebrity. If it were the guy next door they would given it a break already. Sneddon clearly had an unhealthy obssession, probably because of the prestige and career advantages of prosecuting a celebrity.

Police can investigate someone all they want. They need to come up with evidence before they can arrest and charge someone.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 13:56 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Oh, and I have to repeat the Chandler settlement has always been the stuff of legends for people who believe MJ was guilty. It has always been the excuse for why the police could not charge MJ with a crime. In reality, settlement neither prevented Chandler's from testifying, nor was it even Michael Jackson's money!! After all these years, its finally being admitted by even the media that the Chandlers have been enjoying MJ's insurance company's money who settled with them for 'global claims of negligence'.

And I read many newspaper articles from 1993 which reported developments in the Michael Jackson case. At first all of those articles pointed out the crucial fact that MJ had not even been charged with a crime. Even the innocent until proven guilty mantra did not apply because no charges were even brought. Just rumors,gossip, and speculation.

So its absolutely ridiculous for you to try to use the fact that the police investigated someone for crimes that they never charged them with, as evidence that the person is guilty of a crime. (What crime exactly, since no charges were even brought?!?)

In 1993 Michael Jackson was charged with a crime by the media,not by the authorities. Then the media fraudulently used that settlement to convict him of a crime.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 14:57 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "Sneddon kept the case open for 6 years after the Chandlers ran off in the hopes that someone anyone will come foward to make accusations. It never happened. "

You are lying, someone did come forward his name was Jason Francia, memba him. The second/ first accuser depending on how you look at. As I pointed out to you the only reason Michael Jackson was not charged was because Jordan Chandler did not want to testify, had he chosen to testify the grand jury would have indicted. Thomas Sneddon also wanted Jason Francia to testify, but Jason said he would only testify if Jordie did also; therefore, when Jordie dropped out Jason did not move forward.

Your explanation about for Terry George have me disturbed. No, it is not normal for a 19 year old to be talking on the phone sexually with a 13 year old, regressed or not. My goodness if he is on the phone talking to a little boy like this I shudder at what they talked about, or did when in the same room let alone the same bed.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 18:36 PM • Reply to This »

• Link http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=quintaldo.wordpress.com&url=h...

Also go to this website:

http://quintaldo.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-pedophile/

and read from contributor "the truth"'. He/she does a pretty good job dismissing this myth about Jason Francia.

Sick Of It (not verified) | 12/01/09 | 09:59 AM • Reply to This »

• Link @Anonymous1 (not verified) | 11/21/09 | 14:57 PM

Can we put down the knives for a moment, I would like to ask you a genuine question, and would like your honest opinion. Are the Glenda tapes real?

Chinchilla (not verified) | 11/23/09 | 21:56 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Wow...this article is all over the place...not really sure where Michael fits in this despite the author's efforts. Other than the fact of adding "Michael Jackson" to any blog and getting some hits because people are Googling his name, what was the point of including his name in a discussion of sexual orientation and preferences? And when we got to limb amputations, I was really lost (and bored). When you write an article about someone you don't know, have never treated, and based on media reporting and then have to post a caveat every other second sentence admitting you have no idea if he did this or that, then, well, you are entering pretty dangerous territory and being very irresponsible.

Michael for one thing was in *show* business. He, like many other entertainers, had multiple plastic surgeries. He, like, many other singers also dressed androgynously - for reasons that may range from he wanted to make sure he gained a gay audience to he knew it made him controversial and therefore meant he would keep his name in the spotlight. I can think of quite a few rockers who dressed that way, wore makeup, had long hair, and engaged in outrageous or controversial public behavior.

If you bothered to do *any* research at all before writing this article and veering all over the place, you may have had a "reasonable" doubt that he molested any of the children that accused him. I don't know what attorneys you consulted, but entertainment attorneys can tell you that their clients are often accused of sexual misconduct and they are often counseled to settle quietly as the accusation alone is enough to ruin careers - whether or not they are guilty.

At any rate, the FBI investigated him for many years. I would like to veer off into things I don't know, for what the heck you seem to, and postulate that the FBI probably had him under surveillance and tapped his phone as part of their investigation. We do know they made forensic investigation of 16 of his computers and found nothing, of a provocatively labelled VHS tape and found nothing, and interviewed accusers around the world and never found enough evidence to bring their own federal charges against him. And if their records are to be believed at one point the FBI even declined to bring charges that he violated the Mann Act. I again will take a stab at it and assume they would have if they thought they had something against him.

So while some of Michael's action were questionable, there is no evidence he did anything criminal - after 10 years of investigation by law enforcement, including the FBI, forensic examination of his clothing, bedding, DNA, bodily samples, fingerprints, computers, residences, and a trial, in which prior "bad acts" were introduced, no one definitively proved he did anything.

You are reaching. You know nothing about this man and you have never psychologically evaluated him. You are using media reports and your own impression of him that were honed by years of those media reports, much of which has now been proven to be false or distorted. He was a public figure, whose public behavior can be exaggerated and designed to keep themselves in the public eye. You do not really know his private behavior. I think your article and speculation about the psychological/sexual makeup of someone you don't know is absolutely egregious.

Paulie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 02:59 AM • Reply to This »

• Link One could also say Elvis was a pedophile because Priscilla's parents allowed her to live in Elvis's home from the age of 14. He was a grown man in his 20s then. I have often wondered about parents who could so something of that nature. Granted his parents also lived there, but who knows what went on behind closed doors?

In her book Priscilla maintains she was a virgin til she married Elvis, but before that she pleasured him in other ways (she declined to expound).

Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:07 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I also think MJ was heretosexual. Why do you think LMP was still following him around up to 3 years after their divorce?

See youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGo_PgKDYCM in S. Africa 1977.

LMP joined him on his HIStory tour while he was married to Debbie Rowe--the tabloids/media covered that. I don't believe they were playing games & throwing popcorn around the room in their free time. Don't forget, the adult magazines found at Neverland was straight porn. No kiddie or gay porn.

Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:51 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Sorry, date of video in previous post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGo_PgKDYCM is 1997--not 1977.

Allie (not verified) | 12/29/09 | 17:54 PM • Reply to This »

• Link wow

excellent analyses!

see more on mj:

http://aliciabanks.vox.com/library/post/this-is-not-it---mourning-the-et...

alicia banks (not verified) | 12/31/09 | 05:23 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Wow...yet another psychologist practicing arm chair psychology on the Internet, using the tabloids as his basis for analysis! What a riot! Michael Jackson was one of the most interviewed, most photographed, most scrutinized personalities in all of history. I've seen much footage of him where he appears perfectly sane, normal (whatever that is) and utterly in control of himself and his surroundings. I would call him nothing close to "spectacularly strange." This kind of judgment comes from those who have done little of significance in their lives and cannot allow another to be spectacularly talented without bringing them down to the judge's level. One must remember that targeting Michael Jackson as tabloid fodder was spectacularly profitable for the tabloids! Those who cannot see that are incredibly naive and not capable of mature discernment. Also, the author of this indictment of one of the most gloriously talented individuals the world has ever seen doesn't mention if he's ever read Michael's autobiography ("Moonwalk") or Michael's subsequent work, "Dancing the Dream." Has he critiqued Michael's work or does he rely solely on unreliable works such as "Be Careful Who You Love" and other flat out lies by questionable authors? It certainly sounds like the latter. In short, Michael Bailey is just another know-nothing as far as Michael Jackson is concerned. He's never met Michael Jackson, nor has he ever talked to anyone who's ever known Michael Jackson. What a waste of cyberspace. Damn...another 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back. He's just pandering to what some people do best: gossip about others to fill their sad and lonely days.

By the way, I saw Dolly Parton on Larry King last night. What that woman has done to her face via plastic surgery is nothing short of tragic, yet we don't see Michael Bailey dissecting her on the Internet. Why is that?

SoCalGal (not verified) | 01/03/10 | 22:49 PM • Reply to This »

• Link The FBI couldn't find anything on Michael Jackson. So either MJ is innocent or he is a super genius that alluded even the federal govt (and I sincerely doubt that).

truth is this- MJ WAS A HUMAN BEING WITH FAULTS LIKE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. ONLY HE WAS "SPECIAL" AND PEOPLE LOVE TO KNOCK DOWN, TEAR APART, TERRORIZE people who are different, or beautiful on the inside...sadly, that's life.

Michael is resting with the angels now. It's best he is gone....he was to sensitive for this world.

The doctor writes "trash" just to put his two cents in. Michael was human...that's all. Just like the rest of us.

Monique (not verified) | 01/08/10 | 18:08 PM • Reply to This »

• Link @ Chinchicilla, I haven't been back on here in a month because I was too busy. But then the FBI files came out and I figured this debate was pretty much over. Anyway I will respond to your last claims if you are even still around. First, no I did not lie about the case being kept open for 6 years. The Chandler case was open for 6 years until the statute of limitations ran out. Even the FBI was still investigating MJ in 1995 a year after the Chandlers ran off.

Also about Terry George, after reading the FBI files and rethinking it, I regret my previous post about him. The reason I was so sympathetic to his claims before was because I saw him on a documentary called "Michael Jackson's Secret Childhood" where he was defending Michael Jackson and saying the phone conversation was really no big deal. He implied that the media had blown everything out of proportions and said he did not believe Michael Jackson was really a pedophile. He confused me about the seriousness of his accusations. Now I think its pretty bizarre. I've also heard that he was a rich business man and therefore he had no reason to sells stories to the tabloids.

When I read the tabloid article from the Sun in the FBI files, I began to question his motives. First of all I thought his accusations just came out in 2004, I didn't know he was a part of the original 1993 tabloid circus. According to the article in the FBI files he was a disc jockey in 1993, not the rich businessman of 2004. Considering the tabloids have paid all the other disgruntled ex-employees including the Francias, its highly likely he was paid for his original story in 1993. The FBI files also demonstrate that after the Chandler accusations erupted Terry George went straight to the British tabloids with his story. He didn't think to contact the authorities. The authorities only found out about him through the tabloid. Also, don't know if this is important, but the files state they declined to file charges against MJ based on these accusations. I don't know if its because it was too long ago or if it was because even they were suspicious of Terry George's motives. These FBI files have shed more light on Terry George. I also wonder, considering the DA's desperation in 2005, why he didn't include Terry George in his list of prior bad acts? Suspicious.

Also, who does this sort of thing? What does he have to gain by talking to the tabloids and doing TV documentaries and writing (bragging really) about his supposed 'relationship' with Michael Jackson on his blog, while at the same time defending MJ and saying he does not believe he was a pedophile? According to Charles Thompson (very knowledgeable journalist), he has a successful PHONE SEX business!!! Are you kidding me? LMAO. http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-file-reveals-at... So maybe, it was his Michael Jackson allegations that helped in become this 'successful businessman' who has nothing to gain by talking to the tabloids. LOL. And as Thompson points out Terry George has no evidence, other than a picture taken with Michael Jackson in 1983, 4 years after he claimed MJ tried to have phone sex with him... hmmm. For all we know he could have been an obssessive fan who had his picture taken with MJ in 1983 after meeting him just once. And again, if this really happened what incentive does Terry George have in talking to tabloids and going on MJ documentaries, instead of cooperating with the authorities ? Could he just be promoting his phone sex business?

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:09 PM • Reply to This »

• Link And no. I never heard of the Grenda tapes.

Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:15 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

The only thing that is absolutely amazing in this discussion is the number of people that are willing to take hearsay evidence, third-party allegations, and assertions that no basis in fact and make an accusation against another person as if it were proven fact.

It doesn't matter what you personally think or believe, since that doesn't constitute evidence. For everyone that thinks it's perfectly OK to accuse Michael Jackson of being a pedophile, just ask yourself how you would defend yourself should a similar accusation ever be made against yourself. Do you think that you'd escape the knowing smirks and innuendos?

As for the individual that brought up the testimony of identifying Michael Jackson's penis .... How absurd are we going to get? Are all men automatically criminals to the point of where members of the same sex can't be in a locker room together because of age differences? Why on earth would someone think that it is perverted that two males of different ages may have seen each other nude? The next time you go to the gym and are in the locker room (or showering) ... take a good look and see if there might be 13-14 year old boys around.... and then consider whether a supposedly rational, thinking adult can actually assert that this kind of nonsense is evidence of a crime?

This kind of foolishness goes on far too frequently in this country. People need to grow up and realize that the news and television does NOT constitute a trial nor a legal proceeding. Stating accusations as if they were fact, is simply irresponsible. There are no exceptions, there are no excuses. If you don't have hard legal evidence for any of your statements that you're little more than a backyard gossip.

The law operates the way it does (sometimes poorly) precisely so that ALL OF US, are not subject to the interpretation of mobs and their sense of justice. So every time someone accuses Michael Jackson of a crime that hasn't been proven, they are showing how little respect they have for the protections that are intended to ensure that none of us is convicted by innuendo.

Gerhard Adam | 01/14/10 | 18:53 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Anonymous1 (not verified) | 01/14/10 | 16:09 PM

I have not been around for a while either, and just happened to pop in tonight. Since I last crossed swords with you alot has happened, the FBI files. They did not say much; they neither convicted or exonerate. I think Michael Jackson's fans missed something, Sneddon was not the one chasing Jackson's alleged victims around the world, it seems Ron Zonen crossed many borders as well. What has changed is my reading list, I have since read Aphrodite's book, Ian Halperin's & Randy Taraborrelli's. I still habour very strong suspicions on Michael Jackson's innocence especially after Taraborrell's book. Here is what I believe in my heart. Michael Jackson either sexually molested Jordan Chandler, or Jordan believes he was sexually molested by Jackson. Oringinally I dismissed the Sodium Amythal explanation given by Mary Fischer, but after other reads it does seem a little more plausibe, but still a stretch. Given the fact that only 2 people know for sure if it were used Evan and Torbiner, and Evan is dead that leaves one to back up or debunk the story. Diane Dimond and Geraldine Hughs do not believe that the drug was administered to the kid. Incidentally the prosecution wanted to call Jordan Chandler to the stand in 2005, and any claims made by a victim while under the influence of sodium amythal is not admissible in a court of law. I doubt Sneddon would have risked it. I do have doubts about Gavin's claims, but Jordan's is very disturbing reading. After reading all these books the only reason I am even entertaining the sodium amythal explanation is, that in Michael Jackson's world everything is back-to-front & upside-down. This is a place were the twight light zone and main street happily co-exist.

I don't fully buy Aphrodite's claims of a conspiracy. I think the public fuelled by the media were/are deeply suspicious of Michael Jackson's relationship with young boys. Lets pretend for a moment that his association with them was as he claims innocent, it is still not normal behaviour for a man to be sleeping with young children just for the fun of it. Granted Michael Jackson is an unconventional character, but it is still unseemly. How would it look if Larry King made such a declaration? In addition what was clear to me in the Aphrodite book and FBI report was the sheer zeal in which the prosecution wanted to bring Michael Jackson to his knees. If the 2005 case had a weak foundation and they knew it, the intention then was ruination. It almost worked. What would have caused such intense feelings for MJ? Something about the 1993 case did not sit well with them. I have since come to realize that this case is a mute point, it does not have the burden of proof a criminal trial would reveal, and all we are left with is innuendos, speculations, and second/fourth hand information. Jordan or Michael never took the witness stand in this case, and as far as I know Michael never gave a deposition with his side of events.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 00:17 AM • Reply to This »

• Link

Lets pretend for a moment that his association with them was as he claims innocent, it is still not normal behaviour for a man to be sleeping with young children just for the fun of it.

That's just rubbish. I'm really tired of everyone assuming that as soon as a "man" is involved then his every action must be viewed as a potential perversion. There is nothing wrong with a man sleeping with his son or his grandson, just as no one would think anything of a mother/daughter or granddaughter situation. I am really tired of the implicit innuendo that a "normal" man doesn't engage with anyone, as if he's some rabid animal that can't be left alone without supervision.

So the only question is whether it is normal to sleep with strangers. The main question to consider is whether it is "normal" to have an amusement park whereby you invite hundreds of strangers to visit and participate. If that's your version of "normal", then I would argue that you can't suddenly allege that sleeping together is somehow perverse. The only reason why people raise their eyebrows is because they're imagining a complete stranger in their own environment. However, the problem is that having a complete stranger over at your house would, in itself, be unusual, so by extension is everything you would do. If you made them a sandwich for lunch that would be unusual for a complete stranger.

So, it pays to have a context and the simple truth is that Michael Jackson was constantly surrounded by hundreds of strangers, so his involvement with them is NOT unusual and shouldn't be construed within the same context as you might view the goings on at your own home or a neighbors. They aren't in the same world.

Gerhard Adam | 01/29/10 | 17:51 PM • Reply to This »

• Link "The main question to consider is whether it is "normal" to have an amusement park whereby you invite hundreds of strangers to visit and participate." No, to have an amusement park in your backyard is not normal for a celebrity. The very definition of normal means ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill etc, but Michael Jackson was not your ordinary celebrity next door. Personally I don't believe he built an amusement park as a lure for kids, but rather for their genuine enjoyment. However, something is odd when a grown man relates to children better than adults even if it is not untowards. MJ needed to address the root of his dysfunction. No doubt the dysfunction was also an asset which he channelled into exceptional music and dancing.

Chinchilla1 (not verified) | 01/31/10 | 10:17 AM • Reply to This »

• Link "The very definition of normal means ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill etc"

Well, sort of. Normal is a statistical distribution of the relative frequency of states for a whole population. In this case state = mode of behavior. By the nature of such things most people's behaviors will fall within +/- one or two standard deviations from the peak of the curve, and that's what most people mean when they talk about being normal. Less relatively frequent states are represented at the extremes, the left & right tails of the distribution. Those regions represent eccentrics, behaviors which are comparatively rare. For a large enough population, there's bound to be someone whose behavior is eccentric, seemingly odd. It's odd, but not really "abnormal", because statistical dynamics will generate odd behavior at some rate which is small but to be expected. Jackson wasn't abnormal. He was eccentric. Bradley (not verified) | 01/31/10 | 11:12 AM • Reply to This »

• Link It is not Grenda tapes, it is Glenda Tapes. I have not been able to confirm if they are authentic, or made by an impersonator. Just so you know they are on Youtube.

Chinchilla (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 00:20 AM • Reply to This »

• Link @ Gerhard Adam | 01/14/10 | 18:53 PM

Thank you! That was good points.

Stacey (not verified) | 01/29/10 | 17:36 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Presley is a real child molester he fucks girls when she was only 14 years old.End of story.Study presley a good example of pedophile

Anonymous (not verified) | 02/01/10 | 16:52 PM • Reply to This »

• Link If you are going to comment on Michael's appearance...do the research first. His appearance changed after a Pepsi commercial which elevated an already condition of vitiligo that many people have from sun- damage...hence the hea from the commercial . In addition, his lips were burned, eyelashes, brows, etc, and surgery began then. My opinion as a die-hard fan that believes in his innocence, in spite of the EXTORTION CASES...I also did a lot of research and believe from what I have read, that Michael was a subject of a botched surgery that he kept trying to correct. Also...fans defend him, because we DO our research...from reliable sources.

Anonymous (not verified) | 02/09/10 | 11:13 AM • Reply to This »

• Link For a professor you sure are an embarrassment to your field. Is it too much to do a little investigating before coming up with your crazy analysis? Before Jackson died I did know that the 2005 case was utter BS since this was the same kid who was holding hands with him and leaning on him while being interviewed. It was so obvious that the family accusing him was so full of nonsense that I don't know how anyone could take it seriously. Yet, I was not sure about the earlier case since I had no information about the 1993 allegations but what I had heard from the tabloids and media. (Your same source apparently.) So, I looked online and found out a few things about the 1993 case:

- Evan Chandler was a screen writer, and dentist, who was looking to Jackson to finance his new movie and renovate his home. He initially wanted $20 million which is about the amount the settlement was for. - The insurance company made the settlement against Michael's wishes as documented in ACTUAL LEGIT PAPERS. More legit than the ones you read/referenced, if you did at all. - The lawyer used by the Chandlers was also used by the Arvisos as was the same psychologist. - Chandler drugged his son, with a solution that is known to make people susceptible to suggestion which is how he got the confession in the first place. - Jordan had filed charges against his dad for physical abuse. - Jordan was ordered to pay his dad an allowance from the settlement he gained after he tried to get away from him. - Evan Chandler tried to get more money out of Jackson after the settlement. - Jordan Chandler DID NOT accurately describe Michael's genitalia.

Look at how much information I obtained from a simple google search on the 1993 allegations. Was that really that hard to do? People who claim that MJ was sexually abusing childen are just going by the news stories they hear and I have learned that you can't always trust journalists or articles, because they just end up reporting the same thing the other one says, so there's a real lack of basic fact checking on anything. As for MJ's statement about sleeping in the same bed with kids, there is a part of the interview that they have recently added into the documentary after his death. In that scene he also said "There's nothing wrong with GIVING your bed to a child." After watching various Michael Jackson interviews it had become apparent to me that he had a hard time expressing himself. This was because of him being sheltered his entire life and not being able to have normal social situations. Being shy myself, I understand his plight, especially when you are put under pressure. Even Macaulay Culkin confirmed in an interview the same thing and stated Michael would not sleep in the same bed as them.

Isn't it a little weird that Michael would only target 2 victims in over 10 years of his life? This isn't the case of Gary Glitter or the Roman Catholic Priests that were all accused of sexually molesting children, so why should it be any different for him? It just goes to show your complete ignorance and refusal of seeking out knowledge and I feel terrible for the students that look up to you for guidance.

Anonymous (not verified) | 02/21/10 | 06:26 AM • Reply to This »

• Link i dont think that michael is a pedolphile he went through the trials of life and alls they want is his money and now that hes dead whos getting his house and the entire property? probally someone in his family but may god rest his soul.

smooth criminal (not verified) | 03/21/10 | 12:28 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Headlines like this really get on my nerves. If people research they would know he was never anything of the sort:

http://cure4lupus.org/media/michael_jackson_lupus.htm http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html floacist - michael jackson, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article/1196633 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-v.-Jackson, www.newswithviews.com/Tong/dean117, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHV03txW8xc, eurweb.com/story/eur54470.cfm http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/09/michael-jackson-triumph-and-... http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/07/celebrity-scales-michael-jackson-the-wou...? conspiracy book by aphrodite jones and redemption book by geraldine hughes. The Untold Story of Neverland dvd by Larry Nimmer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205624/The-black-girl-turned-wh... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1201841/I-turned-black-white-H... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-2005-mesereau-had-witnesses-ready-to-... http://explosivemuzik.com/2009/07/01/video-michael-jackson-the-footage-y... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wh4960S3RQ http://www.thesilencedtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl... http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/403276-post-h... http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-timor-tii-dancer-speaks-about-mj-eng-... http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fire-martin-bashir.html http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/exclusive-michael-jacksons-guitar... http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/110013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpptd4BBVU http://www.independent.ie/national-news/friends-remember-michaels-specia... http://www.counterpunch.org/vigo06302009.html http://www.counterpunch.org/reed06292009.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1901538/interviewing_michael_ja... http://www.mjfanclub.net/mjforum373/showthread.php?t=5119 http://www.uncf.org/Campaign/News/mj.asp http://www.tjmartellfoundation.org/PressReleaseDetailnone.aspx?release=4... http://www.mjfriendship.de/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=... www.mjtruthnow.com

http://www.zimbio.com/Hip+Hop+Culture/articles/NYrfi5fp_1n/Micheal+Jacks... www.charles-thomson.net http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=64536 http://www.saratoga.com/horse-racing-blog/2009/06/horse-sense-pop-stars-... http://www.mj-777.com/?p=1624 http://www.jacksonaction.com/index.php?page=search.php&id=5264

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/con/con0xl.html (conspiracy book)

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/red/red1zf.html (redemption book)

Jan (not verified) | 03/24/10 | 12:58 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Even the FBI didn't find anything wrong about him... Wake up ! If you're a pedo, it's always obvious. I mean, there is no doubt. Maybe he was just "asexual" ? Don't know...

Anyway, this article is still interesting.

Fleur du mal (not verified) | 03/27/10 | 15:59 PM • Reply to This »

• Link YOUS A F**kING LIE HES NOT GAY LEAVE MICHAEL ALONE THIS IS A LETTER FROM MICHAEL TO HIS HATERS AND HATEFUL PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT JUDGE HIM NOW YOU SHOULD STOP IGNORING AND ACTUALLY HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY IF YOU HAVE A HEART YOU MAY CRY FROM READING THIS LIKE I DID AND SO MANY OTHER FANS DID IF YOU ARE JUST STUPID AND STILL MEAN AND HATEFUL AFTER THIS YOU NEED SERIOUS HELP!!! GO ON AND GET SOME

MJ WROTE THIS TO HIS HATERS I DONT SEE HOW HE COULD CALL HATIN ASS BITCHES DEAR IT MAKES ME SICK THAT HES SO NICE TO U PLEASE READ IF YOU HAVE A HEART U WILL UNDERSTAND HE WRITES: Dear people, I would like to ask you a question - the question WHY. Why is there so much poverty in the world? Why so many wars? Why so much torture and agony? And why must children die and innocent suffer? I don't understand it. Do you understand it? I want to help. I want to make people happy, and may it be just for a moment. That is what gives my life a sense. Don't you understand me? What did I do that you judge me? Are you really envious of me? You don't have to. I wouldn't wish you to be me… Maybe you just want me to confess my 'guilt': Yes, it is true, I do love children! But not the way you want it to be. I love them from the bottom of my heart. Because children don't make wars. Children have never hurt me. It makes me happy to look in their shining eyes. Is it a crime wanting to be happy and want to make others happy? Many of them who visit me are going to die soon, of cancer or other terrible diseases. I won't let you forbid me through your arrogance to give them just one happy day! Yes, it is true that I had plastic surgeries! Do you know what it feels like?! How often did I have to wake up in pain! How often I didn't know what would expect me when I look into the mirror! How often did I cry when I did it! Don't you see that I'm punishing myself for that I cannot cope with my face - and with myself! Why do you also punish me for it? Yes, it is true, once I was black! You get darker in the sun and get admired for that. But I am sick and you hit me for it. The sun you love so much can kill me. In former times I loved to be outside in the light, too, now I can nearly only go out at night. And you make your fun out of it. If I hadn't become the Michael Jackson you know today, then I would also be like that: I would be a white black with curls and a thick niggernose for which everybody would tease me. Well, now you tease me because of my little nose. Maybe I would already be dead because I couldn't protect myself so good as I can today. Would you prefer it when I was dead? Or when I had never existed? But then you wouldn't have my music! Would you like to do without 'Billie Jean'?! My music you love though, don't you? Just not me. But I create the music to make you happy. You torture me with your disgraceful words. Words can sometimes hurt so much more than punchs. Often I sit in an edge and cry. I ask God for what I have to suffer, what a reason I've given you. Cause I never did harm to anyone. I am afraid of you 'cause you've hurt me so badly. And I don't even defend myself. I simply hide behind my masks. Oh, how I hate these masks! Under them I can hardly breathe. But I have no choice, it's the only way to protect myself. But you don't like it when I protect myself. You'd prefer to kick a defenceless man in his face. but this favour I won't do you. I don't need to be ashamed for anything I've done. And as I can see at you, dear Unknown there are people who understand my message. My friends and me, we don't go into the war with tanks. We come with sunflowers to all of you even though you laugh at us and snap our flowers off. Maybe you will understand not before not only the flowers but the whole sun goes out. With my music, with what I do I would like to bring a light into the world. But is it necessary that I kill myself until someone believes me? And until someone believes me that I just want to do good things and that I suffer from your hate? But then you would be outraged: "And the children?!" Particularly you would say that, you who would love the most to take my children away from me. You say they aren't my children. You say I couldn't educate them. How do you want to know this?! And is it important then what blood is flowing through their veins when I would die for them? Your jealousy and your hate make you blind for what love means. You don't know me, nevertheless you have already judged me! You, those reporters who hammer me at the cross in the morning, you listen to my music in the evening! That is not fair! You are not interested in what you write if it just attracts readers and causes headlines. But my name is enough to attract the people. Why is it always necessary to denounce me? Why don't you write something positive, there you wouldn't have to search so long! Why do I have to be 'Wacko Jacko'? Can't you see that the only one I'm hurting is myself?! You hunt me like I was a piece of cattle. Isn't there anybody who sees that I'm also a human being?! Where do you have your heart? Where do you have your mercy? Where do you have your love? If just one out of ten people who get this letter tries to understand me, already then my life is it worth being lived.

MICHAEL KNEW HE WAS NEVER REALLY ALONE HE ALWAYS HAD US HIS FANS HE WROTE TO HIS FANSITES AND ONCE A FANS FOUND THIS AND SHOWED IT TO US AS WE CRIED I COULDN'T HELP BUT SHOW IT TO ALL THESE HATEFUL PEOPLE SO HERE YA GO FOR U MICHAEL MY LOVE YOUR PAIN WILL NEVER GO UNREAD

downtorideforthejackson5 (not verified) | 04/08/10 | 00:34 AM • Reply to This »

• Link This article seems to lack vital information on Michael Jackson and assumes outright some possibilities without considering others. First thing that I think should be noted is that Michael Jackson was a pop star, suggesting that age plays a dominate role in his lively hood (most pop star are about 16 years old, the mainstream media and record companies refuse to sign stars past their early teen years and quickly look to replace them once they start to look old around 27 to 28 years of age, this is especially more true in the past during Michael's time). Second, Michael apparently hated his appearance, probably because he was abused as a child, or was not well socialized, or both, and most people like this tend to lack a sex drive or sexual arousal all together, forcing their sexual desires to a complete repressed state. Add to that a repressed child hood due to the circumstances of being a celebrity with the money to do what you want but not the freedom to enjoy it, I don't understand how Michael Jackson could have been a pedophile, or whatever this article chooses to call him, rather it seems more likely that he was a self-loathing confused being.

Anonymous (not verified) | 04/22/10 | 08:29 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Huh, I can't believe someone who is trying to become succesful psychologist can be so far away from facts and reality! I have just two things to ask you, if you believe Michael harmed Chandler boy (the first one you say you believe he did), why that boy didn't wittnes at second trial when he was invited? Another question, you say Michael loved to sleep with children, "It seems that he preferred boys to girls." Now tell me, if he was sleeping "with" (he didn't sleep with those kids, he would give them his bed to sleep in) little girls wouldn't their be even bigger chance that he could be accused as rapist?! Oh, and something else, if your child would come and tell you he was sexualy abused, would you accept money or would you try to put that person behind bars for lifetime?! That much about psychology and your theory. One advice, maybe you should ask Lisa Marie Presley about Michael's orientation! And it is so sad, you are same age, and why Michael was master, giant in his work, you are still playing wanna be psychologist. Sad, really sad... Maybe it would be better if you learn something from Michael, like helping others, especially children instead writing non sense.

Anonymous (not verified) | 05/08/10 | 15:49 PM • Reply to This »

• Link the Chandler boy could not testify at the trial - part of accepting a payment is for your silence

if he talks about Jackson (aka Pedo Pan), he forfeits the payment

nina (not verified) | 06/26/10 | 13:30 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Absolute lie pedo neno. The 1993 settlement specifically states that neither party would talk about the other - EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL. In fact it is illegal to pay off a witness not to testify. The actual document is online neno peno you can probably find it and read it yourself and not look so stupid in the future. The DA actually tried to get the 1993 "victim" who was by that time and adult to testify at the 2005 trial. He left the country to avoid facing Jackson in court. Joyce (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 22:13 PM • Reply to This »

• Link We all no he was a pedo why would he pay of the familys of the children he abused his music was great but he was a weird man a pedophile who got kicks out of touching little children everyone get your head out your arse and open your eyes

Josh (not verified) | 06/25/10 | 03:22 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Good article. Let me go father. He had a case of arrested development - like a child actor syndrome ,say like Shirley Temple. Thee are two ways to go - to become an adult, as Shirley did although it took awhile, or to become trapped in Never, Neverland as the adored child you were. I have a relative that is like this, who was the center of attention as a child, but then he grew up and lost his cuteness, and he still acts like that kid, although only his mother and close relatives still respond to him as that child he loves to be.

Gerard (not verified) | 06/26/10 | 08:48 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Elvis really wasn't weird - he spent some time living out childhood fantasies -all night movie binges, renting out the amusement park, fireworks fights and lots of rough sports - with an adult entourage.

Elvis compared to his peers from the 50's, many of whom battled drugs and alcohol - Elvis' early stage costumes were in line with the times, his later 70's costumes arose out of a blend of country music traditions and comic book heros

and the teen idols of the 70's - Osmond, Cassidy and others copied Elvis' jumpsuits.

Elvis' shooting the occasional tv certainly pales in comparison to modern rap artists shooting each other.

Jackson is in a weird category all his own. I first thought he was a pedophile when his date to the Grammies was Emmanuel Lewis with Brooke Sheilds acting as beard. well before the first accuser came forward.

nina (not verified) | 06/26/10 | 13:25 PM • Reply to This »

• Link There is better evidence that Presley was a pedophile than there is that Jackson was. The person who claimed Presley was a pedophile was Priscilla. She wrote in her book "Elvis and Me" that she and Presley were having "sex", but not intercourse at the time she was a minor. Well diddling a minor is child sexual abuse. Far from trying to profit by making these admissions, Priscilla could have ruined her daughters estate if the media had treated these revelations the same way they treated Jackson. Some people think the media ignored it because Presley was already dead and no longer in the public eye and there wasn't much to be gained. I have read that the book and these revelations have driven a wedge between Priscilla and Lisa Marie, but I don't know that for sure.

Joyce (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 22:43 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I have read this article with great interest and understand perfectly what is being portrayed. All these accusations could indeed be true if we had any facts. It is too easy to speculate Jackson was any of which you suggest, but we only have media driven stories. Nobody here ever knew Michael Jackson, nobody here ever knew who he really was, so it is very difficult to establish anything.

Michael Jackson didn't go to award show's with leggy beauties, he never hung out at the playboy mansion, and as disappointed as some may be - he had no reputation for being a womaniser. So does that make him a child sex offender? To me and many others it was Jackson who was far too easily taken advantage of, frequently manipulated and black-mailed by a sob story - this particular accusation being the ultimate betrayal.

As I stated, nobody here knew Jackson, so what makes people think they know anything? It is of course the media projected image which Jackson himself invented - the old razzle dazzle, which in the end destroyed him. The non-human superstar - the untouchable - the weird and bizarre Michael Jackson. All this led to his own demise, people wanted to believe ALL the allegations because there was nobody else like him. Maybe it was media jealousy?, the game of " throw them up and tear them down?" but in the final throw of the dice - Jackson was portrayed exactly as the press had wanted him to be "wacko Jacko" . Who would believe him? Only his rabid fans?

You speak of gay lover's as though it was absolute truth, yet there are many woman who claim to have been in sexual relationships with him - by the way - with no financial gain. Let's suppose Jackson had been a woman, one who surrounded herself with children and made her home a sanctuary for the sick or underprivilged, would we judge so harshly? I think not. There are rumours that Jackson was possibly A sexual (not attracted to either sex) which is why he led a quiet secluded life and prefered the company of children who he could relate to. They were the little people who were less critical of his appearance and non- judgemental of his child-like behaviour - is this possible? perhaps.

It would be interesting to know just how many people Jackson helped through out his life time, how many lives he inspired, and how much money he gave away to charities. The joy he brought to millions (if not billions) with his music and entertainment. The ultimate showman - one we had never seen before, when he sang - people listened and when he danced - the world stood still.

The media have a lot to answer for - really. The rise of the king of pop in the last twelve months is sickening. The press celebrate him as though nothing ever happened, and continue to shamlessly print " Tribute edition" magazines because they know it will fly off the shelves.

How sad it is we need to judge on the needy credibilty of a newspaper -and how sad that Michael Jackson is once again top of the tree in music entertainment , not only because the sheep society need a shephard but - because he is dead!

Confused? (not verified) | 06/27/10 | 12:51 PM • Reply to This »

• Link MR Jackson had two kind of voice: 1)soft - used usually in pubblic 2)deep -used in his pvt life and SOMETIMES in pubblic.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/29/10 | 13:25 PM • Reply to This »

• Link sorry i just don't get the purpose of the article, even because the doctor either do not know Mr Jackson in person...so for me it's quite useless. And just to add, even some little girls, not only boys, shared his bed.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/29/10 | 13:39 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Funny to read piles and piles of stuff, with all kinds of scientific names popping in an out.

A person sounds like a page in a manual. Maybe Michael Jackson was a person who was different all around. Himself, a child lover in his sense of the word, and a strange conceiver of his needed changes of persona.

He was in the end almost all artist, almost nothing else beyond that. People who live publicly are all pointed at when they make life choices, and they make life choices in articulation with their public. That is another aspect of Michael Jackson.

Probably the same choices all of us make, but in the relative comfort of anonymity. If anyone were to tell your story, doctor, what would they tell or not tell? How would they describe you, under what heading?

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/29/10 | 21:35 PM • Reply to This »

• Link 13 Surgeries? Easily explain by this:

Body Dysmorphic Disorder, Read it again, if you remember It's all him. Some of The symptoms include Wearing hats and even eccentric clothing

Problems initiating and maintaining relationships

Perfectionism (undergoing cosmetic surgery and behaviours such as excessive moisturising and exercising with an aim to create an unattainable but ideal body and reduce anxiety.

Body modification may change one's appearance. This is repetitive, or focused on one or more areas or features that the individual perceives to be defective

Drug abuse (often an attempt to SELF-MEDICATE). (In 1993 he admitted he went to rehab because of the abuse of certain medications)

Feeling self-conscious in social environments; thinking that others notice and mock their perceived defect(s).

Strong feelings of shame.

Social and family withdrawal, social phobia, LONELINESS and self-imposed social ISOLATION.

Major depressive disorder symptoms.

Avoidant personality: avoiding leaving the home, or only leaving the home at certain times, for example, at night.

This disorder have some compulsive behaviors such as:

Attempting to camouflage the imagined defect: for example, using cosmetic camouflage, wearing baggy clothing, maintaining specific body posture or wearing Hats. (Explanation for the surgical mask)

Use of distraction techniques: an attempt to divert attention away from the person's perceived defect, e.g. wearing extravagant clothing or excessive jewelry.

Seeking reassurance from loved ones.

Excessive dieting or exercising, working on outside appearance. (It's known that most of the time, he ate only once a day)

Obsession with plastic surgery or dermatological procedures, often with little satisfactory results In extreme cases, patients have attempted to perform plastic surgery on themselves, including liposuction and various implants with disastrous results.

Eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, are also sometimes found in people with BDD

Around 37% of people with BDD will also experience Social Phobia[14] and around 32% suffer from obsessive–compulsive disorder.[14] The most common personality disorders found in individuals with BDD are avoidant personality disorder and dependent personality disorder, which conforms to the introverted, shy and neurotic traits usually found in BDD sufferers.

Cause. BDD usually develops in adolescence, a time when people are generally most sensitive about their appearance.

Psychological Teasing or criticism: It has been suggested that teasing or criticism regarding appearance could play a contributory role in the onset of BDD. While it is unlikely that teasing causes BDD (since the majority of individuals are teased at some point in their life), it may act as a trigger in individuals who are genetically or environmentally predisposed; likewise, extreme levels of childhood abuse, bullying and psychological torture are often rationalized and dismissed as "teasing," sometimes leading to traumatic stress in vulnerable persons.[15] Around 60% of people with BDD report frequent or chronic childhood teasing.[15]

Parenting style: Similarly to teasing, parenting style may contribute to BDD onset; for example, parents who either place excessive emphasis on aesthetic appearance, or disregard it at all, may act as a trigger in the genetically- predisposed.[15]

Personality Certain personality traits may make someone more susceptible to developing BDD. Personality traits which have been proposed as contributing factors include: [17] Perfectionism Introversion / shyness Neuroticism Sensitivity to rejection or criticism Avoidant personality

Common locations of perceived defects Skin (73%) Hair (56%) Weight (55%) Nose (37%) (sounds familiar?)

______He always said he felt ugly, even in his latest years. The most recent comment was in 2003, in the infamy Bashir interview. That part was behind the scene but now It's all over youtube.

"Body dysmorphic disorder causes sufferers to believe that they are so unspeakably hideous that they are unable to interact with others or function normally for fear of ridicule and humiliation about their appearance. This can cause those with this disorder to begin to seclude themselves or have trouble in social situations. More extreme cases may cause a person to develop love-shyness, a chronic avoidance of all INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS".

I don't think his surgeries had anything to do with your pan-sexual theory, especially for the fact that you used some of the tabloids to build your little argument.

His ex-wife Debbie said WHAT? Once again, a Tabloid believer.

Anonymous (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 01:35 AM • Reply to This »

• Link Wow, you took your time to name several kinds of sexual orientations.

Thanks for the class, but I have books too. Look, if you truly are a psychologist you will know that is really not that hard to find evidence in pedophile cases.

They went in his house with enough manpower and supplies to raid an Al Quaeda base, yet they failed to find even ONE thing which could remotely stand a chance at being labeled as "evidence”.

Regular Heterosexual porn was found in his personal computers, you may be suspicious about it and think he could do it on purpose , but some of the stuff they found were embarrassing, why would he put it there? Embarrassing but definitely not homosexual or any kind of child porn or anything illegal.

This proves either one of two things: either Michael Jackson was cunning and tech-savvy enough to successfully hide evidence (both physical and presumably digital) from a team packed with the top computer scientists and highly trained investigators from an internationally recognized bureau of investigation, or, far more likely, THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING TO FIND and that whole Neverland raid was an abuse of power and taxpayer money, by the way.

But Fist of all the 3th case you name never existed. Show me the documents an I'll believe it.

Second: He never said he "loved sleeping with children" MJ is not a good speaker, an ability required to defend yourself, he used to say the first thing in his mind, innocently. And how many children are really abuse in the bed? AND absolutely yes, his Insurance Company payed the agreement, which was a Negligence accusation. The father change at last minute his accusation and claimed that it was a NEGLIGENCE instead of molestation. This is why the Insurance Company took part of in that minute.

Did you know that MJ filed charges against Chandler (father's kid) for EXTORTION? I bet you didn't. Because most tabloids didn't tell.

I HAVE ALL THE TRIALS TRANSCRIPT AND DOCUMENTS where his attorney PROVES that his INSURANCE COMPANY DID THE PAY. Let me know if you need them. ______-

If you took a few seconds to educate yourself on the subject, instead of spreading rumors, you'd see that nobody bought anyone’s silence. In the documents (that are public now, but nobody cares to read them) it plainly says that the Chandlers are free to prosecute this case. Nothing stopped Evan Chandler from getting the money and walking right into a police station. Oh, yeah, one thing did stop him. He was lying. ______- AND Yes, MJ did have a lot of surgeries in his nose and admitted himself to have made a cleft in his chin. A CLEFT IN HIS CHIN! That ISN’T the most FEMININE of characteristics, is it?. He wore makeup, but let’s put all the rockers and male celebrities that wear makeup in the same sack, shall we??

John John (not verified) | 09/06/10 | 02:12 AM • Reply to This »

• Link I read that they found regular adult heterosexual pornography and adult heterosexual S&M pornography - work that one over. Also, some kinky kind of porn that some guy makes look like female genitalia, but it's really armpits. Have to admit I've seen it and it looks real. What I read was the cops didn't know what it was - they thought it was real.

Tom (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:49 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Hmm lets see he slept with little boys and had cameras outside of his bedroom not rocket science. yeah he wasn't convicted but neither was OJ its called money.

Anonymous (not verified) | 12/03/10 | 16:42 PM • Reply to This »

• Link So the police and district attorney's are either idiots or corrupt. Which is the bigger crime?

Gerhard Adam | 12/03/10 | 17:08 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Hmm lets see he left his door unlocked and ignored the alarms so the 2003 "victims" brother could see him molesting his brother not once, but twice. And all this was after he had known the "victim" for 2 years, but oh by the way, he waited until after the Bashir interview aired to molest the kid. Even if you do shallow this you also have to get around the fact that the brother described something entirely different than what the "victim" described - oops. Read the unembellished trial transcripts (they are available on line) then you will actually know the difference between OJ and MJ and know why the jury, who unlike you heard all the evidence, acquitted him.

Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:32 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I have been a Professional Dominatrix in NYC for over 15 years AND I have a degree in Cultural Anthropology from Columbia University, School of General Studies, 1973 AND I studied in close tandem with Margaret Mead on mother/child dyad research. I was accepted into the graduate program in Anthropology at Columbia, but dropped out due to financial problems. I am an expert on crossdressing as I have met and dressed over 500 men from ALL walks of life who secretly have been crossdressers for their entire adult lives. I have MDs, college professors, judges, etc who use my services, as I am a highly educated, highly understanding professional. That is to say, men who crossdress will tell me FAR more honest, anecdotal truths about their secret lives than they will do to their doctor, their psychiatrist or any theoretical expert on secret secual paraphilias. Michael Jackson was clearly a crossdresser and suffered from severe body dysmorphia. The vast majority of crossdressers begin around the age of 7, when they are either "latch-key" children of divorce, left alone at home, and in a sense, their precocious pre-pubescent sexuality, and their sense of abandonment and loneliness, leads them to explore their mother's bedrooms. They begin to dress in their mother's lingerie in an effort to gain closeness and intimacy with the mother. All cross-dressing is an effort to regain emotional closeness with the mother, perhaps a closeness that never existed. In cutting edge psychology today, it is acknowledged that the mother/child dyad and bond is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the development of human relational skills. See Dan Siegel's work at UCLA on why children become on bullies, etc. How ironic that after 40 years, Margaret Mead's work on mother/child bonding has now proved itself to be in the forefront of understanding how our species and our pre-frontal cortex is hard-wired for intimacy with the mother, without which, individuals become sexually dysfunctional, socially dysfunctional, and prone to an enormous array of psychological problems. Karl Jung wrote extensively about crossdressing and his paradigm of the animus and anima, he suggests that crossdressing is an effort at individuation, or the human impulse to have a more integrated understanding of mind.

Michael Jackson's mother would, of course, vehemently deny her son's sexual paraphilias as she is an ardent member of the Jehovah's Witness religion, which has a fundamentalist approach to human sexuality. Anything outside of married sexuality for the purpose of procreation is considered taboo and sinful. It's quite clear if you look at progressive photographs of Michael over the years, that he transitioned very gradually (a word the transsexual community uses) from male to female. Although he did not get a breast implant or have his male genitalia changed (although that is possible and we will never know), it is clear that he patterned his face after that of an idyllized "goddess" celebrity; I would suggest either Liz Taylor or Diana Ross.

As for his private sexuality, he was clearly a pedophile and wanted nothing more than to be in love with, have sex with (as the older woman) a young boy (his stand-in). Basically, Michael Jackson's weirdness was ALL about the ultimate and ONLY universal human taboo, incest. He wanted to be the mother having sex with the male, young child. How do I know this? Because literally 1,000s of men call me and masterbate to this sexual fantasy. In most men's cases, it remains a secret and favorte masterbatory fantasy. In Michael's case, because of his fame, insane wealth, and his inherent isolation from mainstream life, he acted on these fantasies, and when caught, simply paid off anybody he could to cover up the truth.

I also believe he basically committed suicide by pharmaceuticals because living with incessant incestuous, paraphiliac belief systems DOES inevitably lead to increased hard drug use and severe depression.

DominaNY (not verified) | 12/11/10 | 13:52 PM • Reply to This »

• Link He was a pedophile, there's no doubt about it.

Anonymous (not verified) | 12/23/10 | 18:03 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Really? He molested you? That's the only way you could have no doubt, unless of course you saw it with you own eyes.

Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:36 PM • Reply to This »

• Link There is absolutely no credible evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested a child. Any alleged molester subjected to the intense scrutiny that he was under would have been found out with some corroborating evidence, such as trophies, DNA evidence, or images. Nothing of the kind was ever found. All we have are two accusers. The second so laughable as to be laughed out of court and the first with plenty of evidence that it was a setup. A lot of smoke, much of it created by accusers looking for money and prosecutors looking for revenge and a political payday, but not much fire (corroborating evidence). It is interesting to note that after his death, there have been no more claims of child sex but plenty of claims of sex with consenting adults, nearly all females. The one homosexual claim was by an Arnie friend or worker. That claim has been dropped. And all the females claimed that Michael Jackson produced their love child. Again accusations made with the clear intent of getting money. Everything else is nothing but speculation and none of it very credible since no psychologist was in his confidence, examined him, tested him, or psychoanalyzed him with his participation and consent. Therefore, everything here is pure speculation and based on the public personna of a performer. What you see publicly is not what you get privately. People who actually spent time with him, have nothing but kind things to say about him. I rather go with what someone who has at least spent some time with him have to say.

Paulie (not verified) | 01/29/11 | 13:28 PM • Reply to This »

• Link Was Michael Jackson A Pedophile? It doesn't take a professor to answer this question. Nobody knows unless they were in the same room as Michael when he had child quests and observed any sex going on.

Doug (not verified) | 02/05/11 | 17:15 PM • Reply to This »

• Link I don't care how qualified Bailey is to talk about human sexuality. He is not in the least bit qualified to talk about Michael Jackson and that 's what the article is about no matter how cloaked.

As for DominaNY - You know no more about Jackson than Bailey. Jackson as cross dresser is absurd you have no clue what you are talking about, You also obviously haven't read the autopsy report, which clearly states his liver, kidney and heart were healthy and normal - no long term drug abuse. "Although he did not get a breast implant or have his male genitalia changed (although that is possible and we will never know)" - Yes we do, read the autopsy report his genitalia was normal. " it is clear that he patterned his face after that of an idyllized [sic] "goddess" celebrity; I would suggest either Liz Taylor or Diana Ross." - I would suggest more absurd speculation. The "victim" he "paid off" could have testified against him at any time; even during the 2005 trial when the "victim" was an adult. He refused to face Jackson in court.

Jackson as the most vetted person who ever walked the planet is true; yet not one spec of proof has ever been found that he committed any crime.

How can we really know what Jackson was like? Listen to the people who did know him. I have; and I've not heard one of them say he was gay, except for Arnie Klein who also said he wasn't gay. These people include the two women he was married to, male friends, family and Jackson himself. The voice? Listen to the other siblings they are all soft spoken. His children are proof of his parenting skills. From what I've seen and heard of them they would make anyone proud.

Anonymous (not verified) | 02/15/11 | 21:19 PM • Reply to This »

• Link this blog and comments are totally unbelievable:

For those who wish to know the truth about Michael Jackson rather than the media sponsored agenda, respectfully I ask you to peruse these sources.

FBI files found no wrong doing: http://foia.fbi.gov/hottopics.htm

"Was Michael Jackson Framed?" by Mary A. Fischer http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

"Michael Jackson Conspiracy" by Aphrodite Jones (full book online): http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books3- jetzi/con/con0aa.html

Article by Deborah Ffrench: "The Making of a Myth" part 1 http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson- The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Par...

FBI Files support Jackson's innocence; Media Reports Otherwise: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-\innocence.html

Charles Thomson One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.\html

Michael Jackson: It's Time For Outlets to Take Responsibility in Covering the Rock Star http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/michael-jackson-its-time_b_482176.\html

If Jordan had testified in 2005, Tom Mesereau was ready: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/tom- mesereau-had-witnesses-t...

Finally: The reality of Martin Bashir's duplicity: http://explosivemuzik.com/2009/07/01/video-michael-jackson- the-footage-y...

Jan7 (not verified) | 02/28/11 | 16:00 PM • Reply to This »

• Link http://www.mjworld.net/news/2009/09/24/a-tribute-to-michael-jackson/ “Bashir is the sort of person who could stab a person and, with cool and calm demeanor, go on to ask why the victim is in pain. He is “disturbed” by Jackson’s ostensibly eccentric behavior and “concerned” for the children, all the meanwhile inflicting psychological torture on the father. The manipulative journalist exploits Michael’s sensitivity. He throws Michael off balance and then points to his angst as evidence of character flaws. At times his interrogation borders on sadism. Knowing it will open painful wounds, he nevertheless pries into Michael’s demons. Perhaps what Bashir was really looking for in his ideal subject was a cold hard rock rather than a human being. What he found instead was a saint”.

By Filip Panusz

Jan7 (not verified) | 02/28/11 | 16:08 PM • Reply to This »

• Link

ADD A COMMENT

Anonymous Your name:

E-mail: The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage:

• Allowed HTML tags: