In this post I showed that the connection to some of the documents that were leaked in 2013 were from 1993 and they originally were from an Actor/Director/Sometimes Private Investigator named Paul Baressi.
The pages that I am going to show come from a book titled Hollywood Interrupted by Andrew Breitbart & Mark Ebner. In the book is a chapter devoted to Paul Baressi and his work for Michael Jackson. Not the work he did for him in 1993, but the work he did for Michael in 2001. It also covers what he did in response to that work going unpaid and Andrew Breitbart’s part in an episode of Dateline NBC titled “Michael Jackson Unmasked”
Here is the Chapter about Paul Baressi, F.Marc Schaffel Michael Jackson and a video.
If this story is to be believed Paul Baressi once again helped Michael. So what changed? If this story is to be believed and while most Michael Jackson fans question Paul Baressi I know that Andrew Breitbart would have checked out the sources that he gave him before he wrote it in a book. The question is was it Schaffel’s intention all along to frame Michael? To get a better idea of the working/non working relationship between Michael and Mark Schaffel read the testimony of Rudy Provencio here.
to be continued….
I purchased a copy of a 1993 edition of the Globe Magazine on Ebay almost two years ago.It was the September 16th edition of the magazine and it was almost completely devoted to the 1993 Michael Jackson Scandal of that time. It had a follow up story on a story run the week before about payoffs of other parents and children prior to August of 1993 when the accusations of Jordan Chandler first became public.
This is a story that has been revisited on several occasions. It was Roger Friedman that wrote about the origins of the documents that were shown to him by someone named Paul Barresi. Paul Barresi sometimes worked as a private investigator and he was willed some audio tapes and other tapes by a writer for The Globe, Jim Miteager.
The Letter that was shown in The Sunday People in June 2013 was this one. Roger Friedman wrote about these files that were shown to him by Paul Barresi on Fox in 2005 during the trial.
From those stories you can fill in the blanks in the redacted versions on in The Sunday People story from June 2013. The letters below are of course talking about Blanca Francia. They don’t mention who the source is, but, there is one tell tale sign as to who it might be when they say that Blanca knew Michael molested kids because the only boys he never slept with were his nephews.
Let me introduce someone named Victor Gutierrez.Gutierrez is the man that wrote the book Michael Jackson Was My Lover. That book is the only other place where these words are credited to Blanca Francia.
There is a portion of the letter shown in this article on September 16th 1993.
The story from the book Michael Jackson Was My Lover.It was told by Gutierrez supposedly repeated from what Blanca Francia.
The wording in the portion of the letter shown is the same as the one shown in 1993. The story originally contained the names John Branka (yes this is the way the article spelled his name) and Bert Fields. Bert Fields sued the Globe and won and it was about this article.
Here are the rest of the “documents” shown in the original story in The Sunday People.
This is an unredacted version of the last document.It can be seen on MJ Truth Now in their Frontline video at 33:56.The article in The Mirror also says that they were hiding the identity of the source because of threats. If he was receiving threats from fans he shouldn’t come to their blogs.
I also think that Gutierrez might have been behind all of the stories of boys.In spite of having several pictures of Michael with nieces and daughters of friends being very affectionate his eyes only see the boys?
Gutierrez was successfully sued by Michael Jackson.Michael won an award of $ 2.7 million dollars in April of 1998.Michael sued him, ABC and Diane Dimond after Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy saying that there was a tape of Michael Jackson molesting a boy. Michael sued hmi for slander. Contrary to what some people may think when a person is sued for slander they are sued for slander not a particular story is sued for slander.
Diane Dimond was dropped from the lawsuit and Michael filed an appeal. The original court decision was upheld. Tom Sneddon gave a declaration that said that they were looking for the tape prior to her reporting it.
For more information on the association of Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez read this blog.
The Truth Is Always The Best Defense
Part One: The Blog
This blog article is to provide information to our readers and other Michael Jackson fans.The information is going to be a complete history of the online interactions of David, me,Vindicating Michael Jackson administrator Helena, Charles Thomson, other Defenders of Michael Jackson and some of his close friends and family.
I will start with this entry as part one because of the length, duration and continuation of what I feel is the online harassment of certain individuals by the group to be shown. There will be mostly narrative to demonstrate the timeline.
The best place to start would be at the beginning. It started in late June of 2010 when a young blogger going by the name of Desiree came to the blog and started commenting. She was promoting her blog Desiree Speaks So Listen which I will refer to from now on as DSSL for the sake of brevity.
What she wrote was upsetting to the readers and at their request she was blocked from commenting.This was done after long discussions between the admins of the Vindicating Michael Jackson blog because Helena that started the blog did not want to censor anyone.Our readers, because of the comments that she made, thought she was something called a “hater” or a “troll”.
She invited our readers to her blog to debate her “facts” that she thought proved Michael Jackson was guilty. I did but her replies basically were to name call and belittle the person that opposed her opinion. During this time someone went to her blog and took a picture that she had up of the “description” from the book Michael Jackson Was My Lover. It was posted and she then sent us the following email:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Desiree wrote:
Name: Desiree Hill
Dear Blog Admins at vindicatemj.wordpress.com,
You are using a work that I own the copyright of. The name of the work involved is “jordieinterpret2.jpg” and “chronobrettmon.jpg” It appears on a site operated by you at http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/was-it-match-or-mismatch/ and http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/to-victor-g-who-diary-was-that-again/ , respectively. I have reserved all rights to this work, which was first published on http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/08/re-michaels-sexuality-video-find.html and http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/09/re-michaels-sexuality-was-brett-barnes.html in August 2, 2010 and in September 1, 2010, respectively.
Your copying and/or use of my work, which appear at the links above, is unauthorized. You neither asked for nor received permission to use the piece nor to make or distribute copies of them in the manner you have. Furthermore, you have taken credit for my work and caused confusion as to whom the original author of the work is. Therefore, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 USC §101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000. Further, such copyright infringement is a direct violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and International Copyright Law.
I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of the work and all copies of it, that you remove any further works you may have stolen and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. Furthermore, I demand that you post an apology on the site clarifying who the real author is and that you inform others that might have been misled by your misuse of the works’ origins.
If I have not received proof of compliance from you within 72 hours, I shall consider taking the full legal remedies available to rectify this situation including contacting my lawyer and/or your site’s administrators.
Desiree L. Hill
PS. I know none of you have any respect for me or my viewpoint but, seriously, what gives? You didn’t even ask! Who does that? It’s different if they were stock photos but they aren’t. I took them with camera I purchased, of a book I purchased with MY money, and I watermarked them with my software. WTF? What is wrong with you people?
Time: Friday September 10, 2010 at 2:08 am
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.
This was Helena’s reply:
Subject: Re: [Vindicating Michael] Contact Us
Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 5:14 AM
Dear Desiree Hill,
All necessary amendments have been made to the posts you have mentioned in your letter (the URL links inserted into the text and a postscript clarifying the situation with the second drawing made to the original text). I would like to assure you that it is my strong intention to always supply my readers with the fullest information possible including links to the original sources. However these links are not always available to me and in case I make another similar lapsus I would be really grateful to you if you could inform me of the mistake made. Let me assure you that I will take every effort to immediately correct it.
If the above measures are not found satisfactory by you please inform me what else you would require of the admin to amend the situation in compliance with the US laws. Since I am foreigner and the US laws are not applicable in my country I naturally have no way of knowing what is required of a writer as regards references to other people’s materials. I would be happy if you could provide me with the necessary information.
As regards the content of your site and the materials posted there I find them extremely interesting as they provide us with a completely opposite view on the subject discussed in our blog and give an objective opportunity to get to the bottom of the Michael Jackson case. As I have already stated in my today’s comment in the blog I am sure that you are interested in cooperation between the two sides as both of us are setting the goal of reaching for the truth about Michael Jackson.
Please accept my apologies for any possible inconvenience done.
And her reply back to Helena:
I would like it noted that I did not tell her my actual name but during a prior comment as anonymous on her blog that I posted she posted my IP address.
It was after that when she started commenting on the blog again.She would use different names and a proxy server to circumvent the block that we had on her and these are the comments that remain on the blog today.
Submitted on 2010/09/30 at 11:01 pm
I understand what you are saying about Gutierrez’s story can only be verified by Gutierrez. It’s true: if we don’t have a tape recording or transcript of his convo with Joy, it will always be up to debate. If you think VG is no good, his story is BS; if, like me, you think VG has value, his story can be looked at as having merit.
Anyway, when I say ‘talk is cheap’, I mean ‘actions speak louder than words’.
Joy Robson cried on Mother’s day to Charli Michaels because she couldn’t find her son. That makes me think she knew Michael’s proclivity for boys and feared for his safety. Her words to June Chandler (which she confirmed she’d said) about Michael finding another special friend to replace Jordie makes me think she knew about Michael’s proclivity for boys.
I was researching pedophiles and ‘boylovers’ last night and I stumbled upon a blog featuring pictures of boys (dressed, playing kid’s games, etc.) and one of the ‘boylovers’ said something to the extent that a boy, who’d been about 12 in one of the pictures, was now 19 and was ‘too old’.
This would certainly jive with Michael’s revolving door of special friends and how he just drops them and has a new one, something Joy told June Chandler. (Interestingly enough, when Michael knew Jordie would not be able to come along with him on the Dangerous Tour, he quickly brought in Brett Barnes–Jordie’s ‘twin’–as a replacement; it makes me wonder if that was intentional on Michael’s part…)
That Joy Robson said that to June Chandler and then was on the stand saying Michael was a great guy, etc., etc., makes me question the veracity of her testimony.
That is all I’m saying. Words are frequently sources of true but, as always, everyone needs to be checked out. I believe very strongly that Joy knows a lot more about Michael than she said. She’s an intelligent woman, I can tell, but she looks likes she hiding something.
I am up in the air about whether Wade had ever been molested but I do believe Charli Michaels saw Michael handling the boy in an inappropriate way during dance lessons. The group New Edition recounted that Michael would be very physical in handling his subjects (they were all teen boys at the time and were weirded out that Michael liked to touch them on the hips, etc.). Is it impossible Wade simply mistook the fondling as normal instruction? I don’t think so!
As for the media, anyone who believed the Arvizos without a question is full of crap. They had a history of lying and extortion. They were greedy. However, while I don’t necessarily believe Gavin Arvizo was molested, there was something suspicious going on regarding the unindicted co-conspirators (the Germans, Schaffel, Frank Cascio, etc.) trying to get them out of the country. Why were people taking their furniture? I believe Michael knew what was going on and possibly arranged it; he just had a good attorney in Tom Mesereau and T-Mez was able to effectively distance Michael from the truly strange goings-on with the Arvizos. I don’t know if Gavin was touched but I wouldn’t be surprised. Everything was too weird…
Remember, reasonable doubt does not equal completely exonerating evidence showcasing innocence. Nor does Not Guilty equal innocence.
I implore you to look at behavior. Michael said he’d slit his wrists before he’d hurt a child but in 1993, he ran like a man scared. He fought the doctors during the body search. He wrote checks in the millions to Jordie, Jason, and Jimmy Safechuck’s dad. He didn’t ACT innocent.
Submitted on 2010/09/30 at 11:14 pm
Having read VG’s book numerous times, I believe his reportage on the relationship was accurate. From the Primetime Live interview, they showed a clip of their wedding ceremony in the Dominican Republic and it was truly bizarre. Michael didn’t even know what finger to out the ring on, let alone did he look remotely amorous OR interested in what was going on.
Gutierrez interviewed the judge and the judge said the union was BS. Do you really think he’s a liar, too?
There was nothing kosher about that union and it is odd that many fans still believe in it’s legitimacy. They were never in love and he treated her like dirt. I am not a LMP sympathizer in the least but I do feel sorry for her.
She stated she and Michael would be in bed and then the children would come in and out she went! He cared more about the boys than her, which spells disaster…
‘Break of Dawn’ was not even about Lisa Marie. Sorry, that’s nonsense. Michael Jackson–not matter how many songs about girls he wrote–was not a heterosexual. Forget the porn; I think he was trying to get himself to like women.
He was gay.
Submitted on 2010/10/01 at 8:15 pm
“At the moment I’ll say only one thing – you haven’t met my request to try and find a positive explanation as to why Michael continued ‘sleepovers’ after the first accusations.”
You are asking me the impossible! Even when I believed Michael was innocent (and I ceased such uncritical thinking early June), the de facto ‘He lost out on his childhood and the sleepovers were his way of reliving those lost days’ agrument seemed woefully lacking. It never sat with me. The only non-pedophile explanation I can give as to ‘why’ he continued the sleepovers–INSISTING on them–was because he didn’t think the sleepovers were wrong and, in his egotism and stubbornness, he refused to give up bad judgment.
That’s all I have. I think that was something Frank DiLeo had said and it seemed to make moderate sense when I’d heard it.
As for you being an older Russian woman mingling with English teens, I don’t know how Russians are viewed in Europe. As an American, and a 21-year-old not old enough to be thoroughly familiar with the KGB, secret police, or other shadowy Communist organzations, I wouldn’t view such mingling with suspicion. AT ALL. If you were a man, maybe I would (?). Because, in reality, men have a higher sex drive than women which is why sex crimes are overwhelmingly commited by men on women and children. Using a woman as an example to compare to Michael Jackson’s conduct is ineffective to say the least.
Your list of what ‘dirty minds’ would think of your interactions with teenagers was flippant, half-hearted, and a stretch. Most people think it is a good thing for youths and the elderly (no offense) to bond. I do, especially since, in America, old people are relegated to the bottom of the totem pole and thrown away. In sum, no one, at least on this side of the pond, would think your interaction was strange.
“otherwise there will be no dialogue. The dialogue starts only when the other side tries to understand the opposite side. It takes two to meet. But if you keep saying that Michael was this and that, there will be no point in the discussion at all – I will answer you that he wasn’t and that will be all there is to it.
By the way I perfectly understand your side as I’ve been there before and it is easy for me to remember what I thought about all those events at the time.”
I get that this is your blog and all but I don’t think it is fair–with regards to debate–to make rules for the dialogue (outside of no name-calling, petty personal attacks, etc.). So, basically, you’re saying if I don’t see how Michael was innocent and ‘pure’, there will be no discussion? Okay…? Isn’t the goal of this site is to DEFEND his innocence? To REFUTE the ‘haters’?
You seem hypocritical.
You know, I’ve been on that side of the fence as well and, because of my extensive reading of court documents, books, etc. and going back through those 3-4-5 times over, I have changed my belief that he was ever innocent. I mentioned previously that I do have a source in the music industry with ties to the PR man of a famous musician who was VERY GOOD friends with Michael (I cannot reveal, unfortunately, but the fruit of my conversations with my source will be viewable on my blog). The conversations about Michael from that source have convinced me that, whatever sympathies I’ve held for Michael (because I do feel tremendous sorrow that he was a molestation victim and an abuse victim himself), there is NO WAY he was EVER innocent. Ever. No chance.
It isn’t about seeing things through a ‘dirty’ prism; it’s about using common sense. I have no emotional attachment to Michael Jackson so I have no vendetta or anything. I simply go where the facts go. Would you let your child sleep in bed with a man who was accused of child molestation (and settled with two boys families) and owned books that were on pedophile reading lists? I wouldn’t, no matter if I thought Thriller was a collection of some of music’s best songs. I wouldn’t do it.
Anyone who says differently is not telling the truth.
Also, you say a mother wouldn’t cry if she couldn’t find her son, that she’d be ‘brave’. Really? I’m just repeating what both Joy and Charli Michaels had attested to, that’s all.
Maybe it’s different out in Russia, but many women would cry if they couldn’t find their children. I think she was hurt by the disregard, as well, but she was worried about her child possibly being predated upon.
I stand by my explanation, given what I’ve researched, Joy’s past behaviors, and my source in the music industry who has detailed Michael’s proclivity…
I hope you can address points in this comment as well as the other, although–and I mean no offense; it is simply an observation–I think sedimentary rocks are more likely to understand Michael had ‘boy issues’ than his fans.
x Desiree (aka Veronique)
Submitted on 2010/10/02 at 11:27 pm
What did I read that made me question–not think he was guilty, mind you–Michael’s innocence after a year of believing he was innocent?
It was a Roger Friedman article which talked about some money being given to a mother and son. This payment was then authenticated by legitimate people (3 of them) who were close to Michael, so I had no reason to question their sincerity. I’m not a fan of Roger Friedman because I don’t believe he is a scrupulous journalist but the story intrigued me so I researched it outside of his article and found other articles saying the same thing about this mystery family. At that point, I still was up in the air.
So then I researched some more and re-read the Farshchian story, looking at it from a different perspective. But I still didn’t believe he was guilty of predating upon a child. I thought: ‘Well, maybe he has a problem but he isn’t a bad guy; we all have our demons.’
Later, I ordered some back issues of Vanity Fair to read Maureen Orth’s articles on Michael. I dreaded reading them because I had heard she was a ‘hater’, as you guys call Michael’s detractors, but her Nightmare in Neverland article was really really fair. So I thought: ‘What made this woman change so drastically? Did she encounter something explosive that changed her viewpoints?
Well, I researched some more. It was a document in the FBI files about a couple on the train hearing odd noises between Michael and a boy that shook me; it really did.
I then checked out Chris Andersen’s Michael Jackson: Unauthorized and found that it had answered so many burning questions, especially about the insurance company.
Funny thing is that I had VG’s book and originally thought it was full of lies. Same with my other books, like Be Careful Who You Love. (Actually, I read that in Aug 2009 and I had thought it was so terrible; in hindsight I think it was because I didn’t know about Michael’s cases as much as I thought. I had only been reading his side.)
I had MJ Conspiracy but when I talked to Aphrodite Jones via email about her book, I found her…unintelligent, not to mention she was very quick to advertise her show to me, which I didn’t like.
Anyway, I read everything I could get my hands on about Michael (hence the book collection I have pictured on my blog; I also read Ian Halperin’s book, which, because of my own research, is quite accurate in many places): pro-Michael blogs, news archives, documents, everything! I bought DVDS and watched videos on Youtube. I read Jordie’s convo with Gardner and studied the convos between Evan and Dave.
I’ve been here before, in the same boat as you fans but it just clicked one day that I realized I was wrong. All of a sudden all of the PR and spin was rendered moot and, like a Phoenix from the ashes, the truth emerged. Couple that with my source (I’d love to divulge the musician to whom my source is proximate but even one hint will reveal too much but he’s big.), I don’t know if I can ever think he was innocent. It’s just too much suspicion, even outside of my source.
I just don’t find Michael believable in his protestations of innocence.
I used to but I think I may nave been driven on emotion of how much I liked Michael and only knew one side . I can’t say I like Michael Jackson because he didn’t like being black. But I do pity him on occasion. Acting like he’s a messiah is unfair to his memory. Michael wasn’t perfect
I write about him because he’s fascinating, maybe in a macabre way, but fascinating nonetheless…
Desiree (aka Veronique)
Submitted on 2010/10/02 at 11:27 pm
You know, David, you claim that the comments on my site are pathetic but I disagree. One of the commenters is a MJ fan but she has doubts about the settlement because it’s not so much that he settled–come on, David, that has nothing to do with guilt, per se–but the AMOUNT to which he settled. Why so much, she asks. I think it’s a legitimate question that you have refused to answer, which I cannot understand why. I mean, Jordie got 15.3M and Jason (for ‘tickling’?!) got 2.2M, close to the amount Sneddon spent at trial. I just don’t understand why so much. If I made an allegation of sexual misconduct against Michael, I doubt he’d pay me such a large amount if it were untrue.
Think about it, David: he went after Gutierrez for the tape (not his book, though) and the Neverland Five. Both lost. Yet he didn’t even try to fight Jordie in civil court. Why? Please don’t say it was because the civil case was before the criminal case. That’s not a good answer because the truth is always the truth: if Michael was innocent, even if the DAs could hear his defense strategy, he’d still win his case, especially if the allegation is false.
And, also, he settled right before his court-scheduled deposition, not to mention Norma Staikos fled as well, only to show up at the Grand Jury after the settlement. I still want to know why? Since this is a pro-Michael blog, I thought this would be a great place to ask the question, yet, you said ‘case closed’ about the settlement. But I still have questions!
Okay, here’s the thing about ‘extortion': it only is effective when said extortioner has something that is either embarrassing or incriminating to the extortionee (if that’s a word). Even if Evan Chandler was extorting Michael–as was claimed by Pellicano–he had to have something incriminating against him. According to his convos with Dave (where he doesn’t sound like an extortionist, by the way, but a concerned father), he said he had evidence.
Also, there is a difference between Sneddon lying and T-Mez lying. Both of them, BTW, wrote their briefs, and Zonen made his request in court, under the penalty of perjury. Sneddon is someone who is trying to win a conviction, as he is part of the State of California prosecuting a defendant; why would he risk his conviction by showing the jury a picture and it’s corresponding description if they didn’t match? That’s all I’m asking, David. It would seem nonsensical to me to put up a picture of Michael’s penis and then have the jury say, ‘So what? It doesn’t match.’ You know that’s true, David; no DA working for the State would risk his reputation on something as stupid as showing a picture that didn’t match! I wouldn’t. If I were to believe he was lying, I would have to think to myself that Sneddon knew beforehand that the judge would refuse the request. Knowing this Sneddon asks for it anyway just to fan the flames of speculation that the photos and description did match when they really didn’t. That’s one hell of a conspiracy, David; I don’t buy it!
I defend Ray Chandler because, if any of you had actually read the 70 page document against the subpoena, he made it perfectly clear Michael could get his documents from other sources and could authenticate them himself, not to mention Michael had no right to any of Ray’s memos, etc. anyway. There was a reason the judge sided with Ray Chandler and not Michael.
The comments above are only a small example of the comments made by the person that came to our blog. There is no record of an interaction on the blog beyond this with DSSL. She did send the following emails on the dates noted.
Name: Desiree Hill
I appreciate the time you took to respond to my comments underneath the Joy Robson/VG thread. You didn’t really answer my questions and I am sorry I upset you. I didn’t think being a Michael Jackson fan involved such intense emotions that simple questioning of his innocence (again, I don’t believe in) would result in anger.
But I wanted to clarify something because I thought the assertion was unfair. I am 21-year-old (soon to be 22) FEMALE, and I’m heterosexual. I am not a gay man, even though I do believe Michael Jackson was gay, but that is irrelevant.
If you disbelieve me, my blog is available for you to click over to. No need to even read the posts, although you may find some of them interesting since you doubt my sincerity as to having even been a Michael Jackson fan.
But, most importantly, if you click onto the page ‘100 Things About Me’ you will see a picture of me and it will prove that I am not a man or a gay man. Also, it will show my age, which is 21.
Please, click to see for yourself. I’d paste a link but it says text only (whatever that means…)
I find it odd that you call me a liar when I have researched as much as I can and I do, indeed, have a source who was close to a HUGE musician who was close to Michael Jackson. I’d tell you who the musician is but I cannot reveal.
I am sure many Michael Jackson fans have researched into his allegations more than anyone else because, of course, no one BUT his fans are going to care about his woes. I have researched and I am sure I still have more to look at. I have many materials but so little time, seeing that I have a full course load at my university. It’s why I have only been able to write 4 blog posts on my blog in the last 2 months.
BTW, I was not going to sue you for using the pics of Gutierrez’s book but I was going to make sure you didn’t use them without proper attribution. Besides, you guys weren’t even allowing me to comment, which is unfair if you were going to use my pics.
Anyway, if leaving your blog is what you want, I will leave. I don’t really understand the idea of ‘Vindicating Michael’ if you won’t even allow a dialogue, free speech. I’m not trying to bash Michael but I’d be lying (there’s that word again) if I said he was innocent.
I’m sorry you took all of this so seriously. I thought it was just me asking questions/raising questions but if people are going to start calling people gay men or pedophiles (ignoring Michael Jackson!), that’s just wrong. No way to engage in debate.
Not that I expected much of a decorum from Michael’s fans to ‘haters’, but I didn’t expect rabidity and childish personal attacks on someone with whom they disagree.
I’d like to leave comments on your entries but it seems as if I have no idea as to what I cannot say. I use P and CM, etc. What else do you want?
But I guess it’s your blog, even though I think it’s unfair. Que sera sera…
Time: Tuesday October 5, 2010 at 3:52 am
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.
I remember distinctly, Helena, that you had questioned that I, Desiree, could possibly be a gay man because I thought Michael Jackson was gay.
You also accused me of doing insufficient research.
I wanted to let you know that I have found definite proof that Michael Jackson was indeed gay.
In 2003, when his Neverland was raided they found–ON HIS MATTRESS–semen stains of 2 unknown men, as well as Michael’s semen. That’s 3 stains showing three different DNA. They were all scientifically proven through DNA testing.
Another DNA test found a 3rd unknown man’s semen in the bed sheets and a pair of underwear. These semen-soiled sheets and semen-soiled underwear from another man were found in a laundry bag along with Michael’s semen-soiled underwear.
So that is a total of at least 3 men Michael had had sex with. I imagine Michael had a GREAT time with these men and enjoyed himself. Now, I also imagine the spin regarding this scientifically proven evidence but denial does not erase truth.
I’d provide links to the documents but I think I’d prefer that you come to my site or get one of your lackeys to come for the links.
The defense, I should add, wanted to keep the evidence of Michael’s sex with other men in his own bed out of trial (and they were successful because I had only heard they didn’t find the Arvizos semen and that was the end of it) because they thought it would prove salacious in front of the jury and media.
So… Michael Jackson was indeed gay. This has been attested to by business partners, friends (even Liz Taylor), and others.
I should note that no female DNA was found on his bed. They also found bloody sheets and underwear. Those, too, it would seem could be from sex as well. I am not sure if the sheets with the unknown semen had blood on them but I’d have to check.
The only real question, now that there is proof he had sex with men, is whether these 3 semen samples were from grown men or boys/adolescents?
I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was having sex with men but a confidant/source of mine close to the famous musician (HINT: he’s in the Rock n Roll hall of fame) has told me Michael and Omer Bhatti–his last special friend–were having sex with each other for Omer’s career. His parents, Riz and Pia, pimped him when Michael saw him in Tunisia.
So, it could be Omer’s semen. They all quickly left for Norway after the raid, interesting, but Omer was having sex with Michael Jackson. I’ve been 100 percent guaranteed on that!
Michael was gay… I guess that explains the phony marriages (he and Lisa’s union was awfully suspect, you’d have to admit that much, right?), the lack of women, etc. Oh, and the nudie boy and very sexual gay man books! The porn was for the boys excitement so he could have sexual contact with them.
Interestingly enough, Lisa Marie always said she wanted to save Michael and I assumed it was for his heavy heavy heavy drug use. But she was a Scientologist and that religion frowns upon homosexuality. Possibly she wanted to save him in that regard.
Clearly he was having sex with men, not women, as no DNA or even photos or love letters or mementos were found in the search. I have spoken to someone in contact with Ron Zonen regarding what was found.
So… yeah. The truth is there. Have at it as you’d like. Michael was gay, which would explain EVERYTHING! The voice, the gay icons he’d been friend with, the lack of women (I said that already but it bears repeating), the boys, the boys the boys!
By the way, he hired Chris Carter and another 17 year old white boy back in 2002 because he liked the way they looked. He spotted Chris Carter across a CROWDED LAS VEGAS CASINO and demanded one of his people go and chat with him for a position (one can only imagine what positions Michael had in mind, LOL!). His security staff, Mike LaPerruque, stated Michael just liked the way Chris smiled, even though he had no experience.
Michael was gay. But was he a pedophile? Hmmm… I guess that’s the only thing we can all still debate!
Have a fabulous day.
Your friend in MJ,
Time: Friday November 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.
jessica’s twin 11/9/10
Let me say that I will not be apologizing to Lynette because I didn’t say anything cruel to her. Nor am I harassing her; yeah right! I am sorry that my ‘disparaging’ of Michael is taken so personally! If you don’t want to correspond, that is fine. I wasn’t requesting that you should, anyway, seeing that my comments on your site tend to disappear into nebulous cyberspace.
But I only wanted to give you the ‘heads up’ on what was a factual and explosive revelation.
That is all.
You can have a go at trying to explain it away in every scenario possible OUTSIDE OF THE ONE THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE: Michael Jackson was having sex with men.
Knock yourself out trying to rationalize fact into fiction. It doesn’t change it, though!
Think about it, Helena, if I had a mattress in my home and there was my female fluids plus the semen of 3 different men, no one would hesitate to say it was do to sexual activity between men and myself.
If Michael had female fluids on his bed instead of the different men’s semen, you’d immediately say it was because Michael was having sex with women. But not if it’s men. I think that is insane!
Yes, you are right, Helena: I do get a kick out of exposing the real Michael Jackson, shattering the image to which you cling. He was not perfect and I don’t understand why you think so.
Your friend in MJ,
After this an email exchange occurred in early January of 2011 between David, the VMJ email list, Charles Thomson and DSSL. It was in regard to her contacting someone from a small unknown site called Wacko Facts on a domain server called Yola. DSSL had contacted the administrator of this site and had found that the email used was so similar to the one used by Charles Thomson that she asked it if was him in the following email.
Message: Hello there,
I realize that we differ on our views on Michael Jackson but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up.
I remember your site doing a post about the site Wacko Facts and that you guys believed it to be ran by Ray Chandler. But that’s not true.
The site is ran by Michael Jackson ‘defender’ Charles Thomson.
I found this out from my team emailing him about the site and how to expand it with more information on about Michael being a pedophile. When he responded, I found out his email address was the same on his blog, except that it’s a different mail carrier. When a member of my team asked if he was *that* Charles Thomson, he avoided the question.
I just thought you should know because I think it’s really shady to pretend and deceive Michael’s fans and his skeptics. I think he just wants popularity. I had heard he used to believe Michael was guilty.
You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to but if you pretend to be someone with info on Michael–salacious info–you’ll get to see his email address as proof he is Charles Thomson.
Time: Thursday January 6, 2011 at 7:16 am
She attached the following Screenshots of her conversation with the admins of the Wacko Facts site as confirmation of their conversation. The site originally only allowed comments on the Michael Jackson Topix Forum.
When we received this email my blog partner David immediately contacted Charles Thomson to inform him that someone was impersonating him on the site above and he first contacted DSSL then replied to us .
It has been brought to my attention that you are telling people I run the anti-Michael Jackson website, http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/.
This is a lie. I have nothing to do with this website and I will seek immediate legal advice should anybody publish anything to the contrary.
Charles Thomson 1/6/11
For the record, Desiree now accepts that I am not the owner of the website in question.
Desiree has also forwarded me screengrabs of the email, showing somebody using my name and the email address firstname.lastname@example.org, clearly designed to resemble my ( redacted per owners request), claiming that they run the website. So Desiree didn’t fabricate this story – somebody really is impersonating me. Screengrabs attached.
I am forwarding these screengrabs to the webhost.
Charles contacted the Provider Yola.They suspended the site from Yola. There were return emails from the VMJ email site attached to this series of emails. During this email exchange is when DSSL received the personal email list of those on the VMJ mailing list.
Subject: RE: Information regarding your request [ ]
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:42:13 -0600
From: Charles Thomson [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 10:24 AM
Subject: FW: Information regarding your request [ ref:]
The website has been suspended by its webhost on account of this fraudulent behaviour. However, the email address – designed to closely resemble my own – will continue to exist.
I’m currently looking into whether I can report this guy to gmail as well.
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 08:25:21 +0000
Subject: Information regarding your request [ ref: ]
Charles was unable to do anything about the email that was similar to his. The following email was sent to us unsolicited in response to this post on the blog VMJ.
Forwarded Message Attachment–
To: Subject: Charles Thomson hysteria
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:51:15 -0600
I am honestly dismayed that you characterize me in the way that you do. That I have absolutely nothing better to do than trash Jacko? That is so far from the truth. I rarely go on You tube outside of looking for a video and sometimes a dumb comment thread catches my eye and I do not frequent any Jacko site outside of my own. I’m usually just looking through the Google Archive or talking to my connections or reading documents and books. If I find a vindication website I usually don’t comment. It’s not worth it to me because you guys are not open-minded. Actually, I am so close to being done with everything Jacko because I can’t stand finding all of these terrible things about him. Always another day, another boy he MAY have molested.
And that they could have LIKED it…
Have you read Carl Toms’ book? It’s very good. Lots of info I’ve never heard from various publications.
Anyway, David, I think you’re mischaracterizations of me are slanderous. Or libelous. Whichever one regards things in print. I don’t appreciate people saying that I am a nutcase because I see the obvious: Jacko was a pedophile.
Tell me, David, do you think he was sexually abused as a child? Your answer, if you’d give me the courtesy of a reply, will speak volumes about both your sanity and your level of ‘research’.
So, in sum, please quit with the hater and troll and ‘has nothing else better to do’ stuff. Thomson forwarded that email you’d written. I saw the CCs. Great! Just great! Now everyone will think I’m crazy because of you and your shrillness, David.
What kind of person are you? Just because I differ in opinion? So silly… Charles Thomson stated I did not make the Wacko Facts story up; since you take his word as gospel, you should believe him regarding me as well. Just stick to pattern, okay, David?
Also, if you’ve came to my blog you’d notice I sporadically post entries because the way I write things with all of my meticulous research–as you said; thank you, David–it is just so time-consuming with a science schedule. This semester is filled with physics, calculus, and a microbio lab. Writing on Jacko will be low on the to-do list.
The word ‘team’ was a saber-rattling thing, David! Come off it! I am a one-woman show, with the help of my sister at times. I wish I had a team, then I would be able to write all of the posts I have lying in wait in my brain and be DONE with Jacko. I have no desire to get famous by ‘slandering’ Jacko. Not at all.
You probably know by now, David, that I think you and the whole Vindication gang are nutters and are blind. I am sad none of you have the cajones to come and debate me, as I do not go onto your site very often. And am BLOCKED anyway, although MJ fans seem to think I block comments. Crazy, isn’t it?
I have more write about Jacko. Stay tuned! I have a post with stuff on his books. Lots of pics from his naughty boy books, as well as some exciting info none of you guys know! And not from tabloids, oh no! The posts on his ‘porn’ on VMJ were lacking, as you’d probably guess I’d say. Mine will be better, and more salacious, filled with analysis and info!
Have a great day, David!
Your pal in “Em Jay”,
PS. A lot of you guys think I am using a fake picture of ‘myself’ on my blog. That’s silly. I have nothing to hide. Think about it: if I wanted to use an avatar, I would use someone more attractive! Like Kim Kardashian. Do you think she’s pretty? I bet Michael Jackson would have no reaction to her! ;-) She should be the de facto litmus test in determining whether or not a man is gay… (I’m not saying you are, by the way. No confusion, although I do refer to you as Blaine, as in Damon Waynes’ ‘Blaine Edwards’ from the Men On Films sketches from In Living Color… sorry! It’s your use of exclamation points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_In_Living_Color_sketches
In retaliation for the removal of the website Wacko Facts and subsequent moving of their site to another domain provider someone took the email that was similar to Charles Thomson’s and posted comments on a site called boychat. They were still talking about the link a year later. Two Screenshots of that conversation. When I was corresponding with Charles and asking him if I could include him he said yes then he said “what kind of person does this to someone?”
They did the same to my blog partner and friend David leaving the link in the article on VMJ about Wacko Facts being taken down. The comment containing the link can still be seen on the blog if you click on the older comments. Here are the screenshots.
Wacko Facts did go to a different webhosting site.They went to GoDaddy. You can see the screen captures of it’s history on the right hand side.This link was originally left in the comment section of the blog entry on VMJ.
A few weeks later we received another email from DSSL. She told us that during the initial email exchange about Wacko Facts she had inadvertently been sent all of our personal emails. In response to the news that she had our emails one person on the list said “this could become a problem.”Yes it did.
From: Desiree [mailto]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 1:25 PM
To: David M Edwards
Subject: a comment on your newest post
I see your website is blocking comments again. Tres tragique. That is a pathetic way to go about life, Blaine, only wanting cheerleaders instead of critics. I love a critic. A critic makes one work harder. Enjoy this, Blaine, for you certainly need it.
Well, I’d left a comment and, as suspected, it was deleted. Thank God you forwarded Charles Thomson my email because I now possess every important fan email address I need, just in case I ever want to leave a comment and am not allowed to do so. See, I do not frequent your site because, well, I feel it is a waste of time because my belief is this, Dear Blaine, a fan cannot refute and, thus, vindicate, an individual when they were not present for their alleged crimes.
This is simply life. It is immutable. I think you’d do well to understand this. I feel in my moral heart and in my rational brain that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. But, of course, I cannot prove it because I (a) was not there, and (b) do not have any access to any documents and evidence and witnesses. But, I believe very strongly that Michael Jackson would have been put in jail had I been prosecutor. Or at least, smeared beyond recognition and his next Demerol injection would have ended the charade for Michael Jackson, as you say, ‘once and for all!!!’.
He has molested boys. I believe your anger at detractors is proof you know, be it in the most minute fashion but it is there, that Michael’s sleeping in the bed with boys is odd. Also, I think you know that he was gay, as the evidence of semen in his bed mattress and in these mystery underwear and sheets proves this. There were never any women around him, Blaine, we both know this, but he had no problem parading around beautiful boys even after his scandals. Because Michael Jackson loved these boys, Blaine. He was a criminal. He inscribed his naked boy book Boys Will Be Boys with tender sympathies. He didn’t even say childhood, Blaine; he said boyhood. This is typical language of the boylovers to whom I have studied since learning Michael Jackson was guilty.
I am not going to say your IQ is up to speed, Blaine, but I do believe you are capable of rational thought. You know Michael Jackson was a pedophile. He fellated these boys, masturbated them, and enjoyed himself. In turn, these boys’ minds were forever imprinted with love and affection and possession for Michael Jackson. Because it felt good. You know this, Blaine, you are a man. Masturbation and fellatio are the top sex acts of males. My ex-boyfriend, a very intelligent Jewish writer (Michael would’ve hated that), loved to masturbate. I offered to buy him a sex toy for Christmas and he told me that he would only use his hands.
Also, Blaine, I believe–scratch that–know Michael Jackson anally penetrated Brett Barnes and I know Brett Barnes, by virtue of his continued sleeping with Jacko, enjoyed being anally penetrated by Michael. Brett Barnes’ anus was scarred so much so he had to be shellacked with Vaseline in order to shit. This is natural, as Michael Jackson was a man and Brett a boy. I don’t believe that Michael jackson had a large penis but his special friends were sometimes small. Thank God he never got to penetrate Manny Lewis. It would be like a bear fucking a mouse!
I have so many pictures of Michael and his boys Spence and Safechuck. It’s so obvious he loved these boys. He was a pedophile; you can see it in his eyes. Everyone in the industry knew it…. As you know, I have a source with a connection to the PR man of a huge musician. And these people are always itching to gossip. But this is how I know Omer Bhatti was Michael’s boy lover. And, of course, his parents were pimps. As Joy Robson showed herself to be one, too, on the stand, my dear Blaine…
I won’t go on any further because a reader, and hence, a source, of my blog, informed me of a conversation with Ron Zonen she had had. Zonen said there was no evidence whatsoever of any female in Michael’s life upon the raid. However, she stated Zonen was adamant in there having been lots and lots of semen stains on Michael’s bed mattress. Remember, amongst the litany of Michael’s fluids, they discovered two other semen stains from males. But he stated Michael was very much into ‘self-love’, Blaine. I did not reference this information in my pieces on the semen but it definitely shows that michael Jackson’s 3 mystery semen samples from other males were from masturbation of these males. Or, of course, a mutual masturbation session. Either way, it is proof he was a gay male.
My belief, Blaine, is that those stains are from Omer Bhatti, maybe Brett Barnes, and Frank Casio. Who knows who’s splooge is in the sheets and underwear but it from an away trip so Michael was boinking some guy (or boy) away from Neverland.
Anyway Blaine, my comment and accompanying questions…
Actually, Blaine, there are some things I believe you need to recognize regarding Tom Mesereau:
1. He is not telling the truth regarding the 1994 Grand juries. This has two parts:
(a) I’d suggest you brush up on your statement analysis techniques for recognizing deception. He introduces this mystery LA grand juror <i>out of nowhere</i> and then never goes into a complete and coherent story regarding this juror. There are two possibilities (i) he’s never talked to a 1994 grand juror, or (ii) he is fabricating the conversation between a 1994 grand juror, who never broached the subject to which he claims they did.
Buy McClish’s book. It’s brilliant. I know you probably don’t read as much as you claim, Blaine (for the longest you’d pretended you knew things about Michael Jackson was my lover, which was a farce, Blaine), but it’s a good book. McClish has worked with law enforcement and believes Michael Jackson was a CM because of Michael’s statements. I’d have to agree… I’d sent him a snippet of Brett Barnes testimony and he believes him to be ‘less than truthful’ regarding why he stopped, at 19, after all of those years, sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson. It was obvious Michael and Brett were lovers, wrong or right, but they were. At that point, they were just gay lovers…
(b) Mesereau knows FULL WELL the grand juries convened in 1994 were <i>never</i>–I repeat, <i>never</i>–looking at evidence for an indictment. They were <i>investigating</i> grand juries, not <i>indicting</i> grand juries, and, thus, would never have the power to issue an indictment. It is odd to me that he would even lie about something like that, for he knows the truth and was reprimanded numerous times in court papers. This just shows a lack of integrity on Mesereau’s part, which is strange, because most of you feel he’s worthy of having his feet kissed.
He’s read the court papers; why he’s continued to lie repeatedly is something I’d have to chalk up to his being a defense attorney and, of course, to Michael being ‘black’.
2. Mesereau is a black apologist. He feels black people are closer to God than whites and will spend the rest of his life blindly believing ALL BLACKS are worthy of the highest standard of defense <i>because</i> they are black. Every black is innocent in his book. I believe 100 percent he believes Michael Jackson is innocent. But it is not based upon evidence; it is based upon Michael Jackson’s former(?) skin color.
Because Mesereau has read the evidence, the documents, everything. As such, there would have to be some other reason why he <i>emphatically</i> believes in this guy’s innocence.
As we know, there were several jurors in the case who believed very strongly Michael Jackson was a CM, and probably even molested Gavin Arvizo. So, the case was not dead in the water for the People from the start, and Mesereau knows this.
I am sure he is a brilliant defense lawyer but a run through the transcripts shows he employed typical ‘trip up the Prosecution witness’ tactics during questioning: a staccato; ending his questions with ‘right?’ or ‘correct?’ or ‘true?'; making assumptions… June Chandler withstood his questioning because either out of ignorance or laziness or blind faith belief in Michael Jackson’s innocence, he knew <i>nothing</i> about the 1993 case.
He’s a typical lawyer. A well-organized and pit bullish Prosecutor could have, at the very least, got a hung jury in that 2005 trial. Because the jurors wanted more. Three of them thought Michael Jackson was guilty <i>of those charges</i>, the foreman, Paul Rodriguez–who is an idiot for believing smoking gun evidence would come about in a molestation case wherein the place of the alleged molestation was raided 8 months following the alleged crime–believed Michael was a CM, as well.
This case was winnable for the People! They screwed up. Had it been myself, Michael would have, at the very least, been ruined in the public. Again, a reading of the transcripts reveals much about his proclivities for boys…
Sneddon may have had a vendetta, but it was because he believed, after having seen the breadth of evidence in the first case and talked to God-knows-who witnesses, Michael Jackson was prolific in his alleged crimes. That sort of ‘vendetta’ is only natural for a former cop and a married, church-going father of 9.
Mesereau is an unscrupulous bastard and I strongly believe he relishes in his contact with the famous ‘black’ man. He will defend him to the death, like the fans, because there is the blind faith aspect of his belief in Michael’s innocence. Of course, I think he is lucid, unlike the fans, so good evidence to the contrary <i>may</i> be able to sway him but Mesereau gets off on black people. He loves us. That alone makes me question his objectivity.
He got Mike Tyson off of rape, for Pete’s Sake. And Tyson has a history of violence towards women. I’m sure, Blaine, Mesereau would’ve fought on behalf of Michael Vick had he had the opportunity! Vick is very dark-skinned. And we all know Vick was and still is scum.
Outside of Mesereau, Blaine, please tell me:
(a) Do you believe Michael Jackson was sexually abused as a child?
(b) What do you think of Brett Barnes sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson until he was 19?
(c) You never stated what you thought of Jolie Levine calling Michael Jackson a chickenhawk, and that Mary Coller (also referenced on the Bad album) stated Michael Jackson separated children into two groups: kids who were his (special) friends, and kids with problems (ie. photo ops).
(d) What do you think about Johnnie Cochran not wanting to defend Michael in court in 1993 but went on to defend obviously guilty OJ Simpson? Do you think it was because he believed the latter was easier to defend than the former?
(e) Are you black?
Thanks, Blaine. Great work on this transcript. This shows Mesereau’s true colors: a blind faith admirer of a rich ‘black’ man (color is so important, as he hates being white and probably feels like he is uniting with God when he has sex with the myriad black women he dates and only dates), who has not a shred of integrity to tell the truth about the simplest facts in his former client’s case.
Oh, and also: Mesereau was knowingly lying (not a surprise) about having witnesses to ‘refute’ Jordie Chandler. It was so simple for him to lie about this when not in a court of law where he could perjure himself. Via statement analysis, you know he was not telling the truth. He should have brought them in to refute June Chandler, the best witness for the People. He bombed during his questioning of her. Or they could have refuted the Neverland 5 or the other witnesses.
He never had anyone. He was not telling the truth–once <i>again</i>–because Michael Jackson was black. He loves black people. I bet he couldn’t wait to stop defending Robert Blake.
T-Mez will always amuse….
I hope you hazard a response. Forgive the html; it had been a comment on your blog.
This email was sent when an article that she wanted to comment on was posted on Vindicating Michael Jackson.Her comment would not go through as she was blocked.
Message: You people are really pathetic. All of a sudden you are blocking comments. Just PATHETIC, fear-based low IQ imbeciles. After all, anyone who’d believe Michael Jackson was innocent after repeated accusations of pedophilia and multimillion dollar payoffs has got to be the dumbest person alive.
Don’t bash someone’s integrity and block comments when they try to defend themselves. That is gutter level behavior.
So pathetic. Here is what I’d written in response, you completely spineless imbeciles… Jesus Christ, it’s like being Galileo trying to convince people against heliocentrism!
DNA is in every cell of the body. This is biology 101. The so-called ‘male DNA’ in this case was extracted from semen. It’s in black and white in the court documents. From a cheek cell, a karyotype can be made and the sex chromosomes will prove if someone is male or female. (However, I doubt a semen stain–given its obvious origins (from the penis) and unique composition–needs clarification as to whether it is from a male or female; determining sex would just be redundant.)
Everyone knows this and don’t mince my words for your own ridiculous goals.
‘Male DNA’, as used in the Defense’s “14 items” motion, was a not-so-clever euphemism for semen. The Prosecution stated where this ‘DNA’ came from. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. For ease of use, female DNA would be the opposite to male DNA, as in secretions. But of course a buccal cell from the cheek found in a saliva stain could show female origins. But neither were found. Case closed.
It was semen. Those are the facts; deal with them.
You know, Blaine (and, by the way, I know you aren’t gay but I’ve formed a habit in calling you this name so it won’t end), I have more than just 5 people commenting on my blog. A lot of people read all the time, they just don’t comment. Which is find. Popularity is not always a sign of good taste….
Oh, and you cannot make a powerpoint disproving something you were not a witness to. That is silly!
I call Michael Jackson a pedo because I believe this to be true and his actions belie his protestations of innocence. But I am not a space cadet, so I fully realize that belief is not proof enough. I fully acknowledge this. But I can show reasonable suspicion and circumstantial evidence, and I am sure if I had handled the 2005 case, Michael Jackson would be in prison as we speak.
You people are the lowest of the low. Grow a spine, some testicles, and learn how to debate like adults. It’s pathetic.
This is your blog, yes, but I find it ironic that the Russian blog owner bemoans Stalinist regimes and attributes that way of conduct to Michael’s situation and yet behaves exactly in the ways she is purportedly against.
Do not bash my character and integrity and leave me without a defense. If you have a problem with what I write or me, you can say it to me on my blog or email me through the blog. Cowardice is despicable on adults.
Time: Sunday February 6, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.
This email was sent to us to announce that she had written another article about Brett Barnes.On her blog there were a total of three.There were literally hundred of comments on her blog of a harassing nature of Brett in addition to the articles.
Lynette and Blaine:
I am so pleased I possessed the foresight to encode my web counting device on my blog. Besides registering my site with Google and Technorati so people could find it, enabling that little counter was the best thing I’ve ever did for my website. Well, besides reaching an epiphany about Jacko.
So, because of that little counter, I know when both of you come onto my site. Bemidji, MN, is it, Lynette? And Houston, TX for you, Blaine?
Well, nevertheless, I see Lynette spying all the time, so naturally, you people will learn of upcoming posts of mine and shit talk at your homebase; thank you for linking me. Yes, Blaine, I intend to write a post on the reality of those settlements; just in two parts, very simple and straightforward with none of the sophistry you like to employ.
Because, Blaine, the settlement is quite simple. It is very simple. Jacko was not forced to settle, never was. Do you know how much a grand total of $25M (yes, $25M, not $15.3) is in today’s money? Well, it is a lot of cheese. That amount of money was a tenth of Jacko’s net worth; do you really think he would part with a tenth of his net worth because of what some liars said?
Well, of course, he wouldn’t.
I would discuss this more at length, Blaine, but why spoil the fun of surprises?
What I find odd, Blaine, is that you assume that you can outsmart me? Oh, Blaine, that just will not happen. You misjudge me; we are not on opposing sides but essentially equivalent. That is just not true. I don’t come onto Vindicate MJ and read those torturous screeds so I can ‘keep up’ (well I did read those settlement pieces of yours at the All4Love blog; they were, in a word, pathetic). Why would I? Why would I need to keep up with stock fan mumbo-jumbo? I could just as easily predict your argument.
You see, Blaine and Lynette, because I have broken away from the Jacko fan apologetics, you believe me to be unscrupulous. Well, that is also untrue. I am simply a girl with a moderately (maybe minimally) popular Michael Jackson blog. My goal is to be there when people unfamiliar with Jacko or those who are questioning or those who are open-minded are looking for answers to those tough questions.
That is why I am here.
Lynette, I noticed that you wrote my readers do not read the actual court documents or transcripts and this is why they believe me. Are you so inexplicably stupid to make such a broad and sweeping statement? Yes, you are; as they say, young fools turn into old fools. You happen to be the stupidest person I have ever encountered. And I spar for pure pleasure, Lynette, and have encountered hundreds of idiots, but you have to be the stupidest one I have ever had the displeasure to run into. I mean, Blaine is stupid, as well, but no one touches you. Wear your crown proudly, girl!
I mean, only an idiot would think that semen stains were saliva stains, and from Jacko’s ‘sons’, to boot. No, they were semen. What goes on in your head to transform something as clear and straightforward as ‘semen’ in a court doc to ‘saliva’? You must be orbiting Pluto! Do you think a veteran prosecutor would lie in a document? You are aware, Lynette, that the judge knows all the evidence, including what is found and it’s accompanying DNA reports, and a DA cannot lie to him about it, especially in a court-sworn document, signed under penalty of perjury. Please, explain to me, also, why the defense did not bother to undergo their own forensic testing, when the DA allowed them to use the evidence that was found? Why not clear Michael of that icky semen from other males that was on his mattress and in bedsheets and underwear kept with his own dirty underwear?
Why not tell the WORLD it was the ‘saliva’ from his two ‘biological’ sons? They could’ve done that, Lynette, but they chose not to; they chose not to argue with the merit and accuracy of the DA’s findings. I noticed there were readers of you and Blaine’s site that didn’t agree with your half-baked analysis. Smart ones, they are. I can understand the Jacko’s bedroom = Motel 6 idea, although it’s complete bullshit, given what I know off the record, but at least they are not making shit up.
Anyway, Lynette, my readers absolutely read court documents! Hell, they sometimes give me links to documents, although, I must say, the breadth of documents on DSSL are found by Yours Truly. Again, because of the web counting device on my blog, I know they read documents. They click the exit link–which is to a document–and don’t return to the same exit page for 20-30 minutes. Also, of course, there is the emails I get where I give links to documents to people.
The snippets used on my website are used to highlight important areas and they are accompanied by a link to the source doc, which they all click. Interestingly enough, the commenters who don’t agree with my findings, for example, the explosive Jacko was gay post, are the ones who never click the document links. It is these people who then leave comments saying that the ‘DNA’ could be anything. I know this, again, because of my web counter. And I say to them, “Well, if you click all the doc links and actually read them, you’ll find your answer, and the answer agrees with me.”
I always provide the links to the original; I want people to realize I am not talking out of my ass.
As for slander/libel, Lynette, you geriatric simpleton, you confuse US laws with British ones. The burden of proof is always on the person alleging they have been slandered/libeled, not the person allegedly doing the slandering/libeling. So, if the Robsons or Brett (or Butt) Barnes want to take me to court, they will lose. I imagine it would be very uncomfortable for Butt to have to disprove that Jacko gave him blowjobs…
As we know, Jacko never sued Gutierrez for his book, only for his lie about the videotape.
I will say no more, lest I reveal my game plan. This should be exciting.
The next email was sent to David by her after she wrote an extensive piece on DSSL regarding the Chandler Settlement.This was another unsolicited email and the last one from her to us.
From: Desiree [
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:57 PM
To: David M Edwards
Subject: Desiree speaks…so listen…: The Jordie Chandler Settlement revisited
What’s up, Blaine? How’s it hanging? If you are as active as Jacko was, as evidenced by his sheets and panties, perhaps to the right?
I distinctly remember that you’d claimed your settlement posts on Vindicate MJ could never be touched, that they were invincible.
Well, Blaine, I’ve written a mammoth about the settlement. Here’s a link:
Read if you are so inclined, my little chocolate f’loon…
This is not the complete story yet this is just the conclusion of the email interaction. I will add another tomorrow with a part two but this one is long enough.
to be continued…
DSSL/MJ Facts: The Evidence Redux
Disclaimer: Adult content link.
The word Redux is often used quasi-humorously to mean that a process has been repeated without being improved. One of our old oppositions has been posting several updates to a “new and improved version” of their site. The most recent contributors is someone that is convinced that Michael was guilty and has submitted a story to MJ Facts once again listing all of the reasons that this person believes the allegations against Michael Jackson are true. Here we are again with the same old tired list of “The Evidence”.
The writer gives us a list that Michael Jackson fans and defenders have heard all too often that led the writer to believe that Michael Jackson was guilty. The contributors list is as follows.
1. Nude books of boys- These are the two books seized by police in 1993.Their titles are Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy: A Photographic Essay- They were entered into evidence on May 5th,2005 just prior to the testimony of Wade Robson.
2. The Semen of two other men was found on the bed
3. Testimony of Blanca Francia.
4. Testimony of Larry Feldman and Stan Katz
5. As Len puts it the nail in the coffin- The description was a match.
So here we are once again refuting all of these nonsensical claims. It isn’t like we haven’t done this before because we have, several times as a matter of fact on VMJ. As a matter of fact there were no less than four entries on VMJ explaining the description alone. There were three on the semen evidence and a summary of Blanca Francia, Larry Feldman and Stan Katz can be found on this blog as well but I guess that wasn’t clear enough.
This time I am writing it and I stopped thinking this was a matter to be handled delicately a long time ago. So the first entry is going to take that proverbial nail out of that proverbial coffin. Here it is for the last time.
”The Description” Redux
Soon after Michael Jackson died I was on The Official Michael Jackson Forum. People that were interested in the allegation against him in 1993 were talking about the body search, photos and that they did not match. Most fans on the site were quoting the one article that was published. It was a small short article that said that the description didn’t match. That was all they had.
I made a statement at the time saying that I thought I knew what the discrepancy was and said that I believed that we would find out that Michael was not circumcised when the official autopsy results were release. I remember when the autopsy came out and it showed that he was uncircumcised. Some fans on there posted their amazement that my prediction was correct and wondered how I could have known that.
How did I know that? Well, it’s simple, I am a nurse and if it’s one thing I do know its anatomy and physiology. All nurses have to go through the same training. That training is like a “boot camp” of sorts where you start at the bottom and work your way up step by step. Because of that have given a multitude of bed baths including pericare and placed an equal multitude of French Foley catheters throughout my career. I know what the male genitalia look like and how they work. I also know that in an autopsy on a male circumcision vs intact is a defining feature of male anatomy. And to all you guys out there that say it is a match or are hesitant when it comes to this question, guess what I know about you.
Then came an article on The Smoking Gun. It was titled . This was put up on The Smoking Gun January 6th of 2005 and Gawker wrote about it as well. It had a brief excerpt talking about a splotch and it said he was circumcised. It also states that the Chandler’s OFFERED the description as proof.
Along come the MJ detractors. They came from far and wide proxy servers, like Topix, MJ Facts and DSSL to tell us that they had found a court document where Tom Sneddon swore that it was a match. They said according to the document sworn by Sneddon the police had asked for a description of Michael’s “erect penis” and that it would look the same as an uncircumcised penis. They have no limitations because I have even had one try to tell me that Judge Melville agreed it was a match and gave me a three line quote from the transcript for evidence. I attempted to correct the error by stating the obvious.
1. A Judge is not allowed to opine about evidence presented.
2. A judge must remain neutral.
3. A judge determines the admissibility of the evidence not the veracity of any evidence presented.
4. Because here in the USA it is THE JURY in a Jury trial that is the finder of the facts.
The judge did not “back up” Sneddon’s claim he can’t and I know this because I have had the dubious honor of being called to jury duty 10 times whether I like it or not. Guess what else I know about Tom Sneddon, besides the fact that he was an overzealous and vindictive prosecutor. He doesn’t know foreskin at all.
They continued to argue this point of circumcision with MJ defenders even using the premise that they say no one has heard what his description was for sure because it was never made public. It was or have you forgotten The Smoking Gun? No? Still don’t see it? Fine, here you go. I will show you what that description should have been by listening to Jordan Chandler.
The first thing that I read was the Psychiatric interview with Dr. Gardner. The interview with Dr. Gardner was on October 6th 1993 in New York. It was detailed account of the activities that Jordan Chandler said occurred between Michael and him in 1993. In this account he says this from page 26:
“I don’t know but I can tell you where.”
“Where did it take place?”
“In my father’s house, his Hideout, my mother’s house, and Neverland.”
“Okay, so these are four different places, so obviously it had to happen at least four times. Right?”
“Oh yeah, of course.”
“But I want you to give me a guess – – ”
“Okay. More than fifteen, that’s safe. But he had me masturbate him.”
“On how many occasions?”
“About ten. And he said that – – he had me – – he got me to twist one of his nipples while I sucked on the other and he masturbated himself.”
Now one would expect under those circumstances that Jordan had seen and felt Michael’s penis a minimum of 11 times.
Now let’s move ahead to Jordan Chandler’s Declaration given on December 28th 1993. When you read through it there is actually nothing that would lead one to think that he could give a description. What happened I thought? What happened to the reciprocal touching that one would expect to see because that is what perpetrators expect is gratification from a “returned” touching.
The other thing that I know about victims is that it is incredibly rare for young male victims to exaggerate or embellish the abuse. They are far more likely to minimize it and not be forthcoming about the full extent of it than they are to add things that did not happen or that could be proven not to have happened.
What happened that made this part disappear? Well, Michael Jackson was presented with a search warrant for an examination and photographs of his nude body including genitalia, that’s what happened.
IF Jordan Chandler had done what he said he did in the Psych interview he would have seen this:
Scroll down to see video on lower right side.
Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words isn’t it? Jordan should have said Michael Jackson was uncircumcised and Michael would have been arrested because it was a match and the evidence they were looking for with the search warrant would have been found. He would have seen and felt what foreskin does under the conditions that were first listed.
You can tell that their side knew that it wasn’t a match because they had Jordan give another statement excluding any incident that might lead to a description. They were the ones that for years focused on a “spot” that would have moved all over the place and they did that to divert attention away from the obvious. Michael Jackson was not circumcised. Jordan was wrong and he had to omit some very crucial points in the first statement so you can rightly question any other statement he makes after that.
I know that some will ask why this post was even necessary and I have asked myself the same thing for a long time. I asked because I am quite aware that the contributor of the piece written on MJ Facts was a frequent commenter on DSSL.
Which has me puzzled because DSSL had the same link to the same video since late 2010. Didn’t the writer for DSSL share the information with her readers? Or was that when the spin started?
To be continued
This is the entire argument and judges ruling in response to the Blemished Penis. As I have stated above the judge overseeing a case does not opinion on the veracity of the evidence presented. His opinion is only on the admissibility of the evidence. The attorney’s are presenting their arguments and using certain laws of evidence that they say apply to the motion to admit the evidence being argued When Judge Melville in this case agreed with the Defense in this case he was agreeing that the argument the defense made about permitting the evidence was in fact correct.
19 THE COURT: All right. The next issue that
20 we have is the motion to admit evidence concerning
21 Jordan Chandler.
22 Do you wish to be heard on that, Mr.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Mr. Zonen is going to handle
25 that, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?
27 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I think we’ve
28 adequately stated our position in the pleadings. I 12175
1 can tell you that with regard to the relevance of
2 that material, there was quite a bit of testimony
3 that was presented during the course of the defense
4 case about nothing untoward or inappropriate
5 occurring in Michael Jackson’s bedroom and numerous
6 witnesses who have testified to the fact that many
7 children, particularly back in the 1993, ‘94, ‘92
8 period, who spent not just nights, but weeks and
9 even months in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, in Michael
10 Jackson’s bed, and it was a completely nonsexual
12 The fact that this child was able to give a
13 description of a unique feature of his anatomy that
14 could not have been known by him except for a very
15 intimate acquaintance with Mr. Jackson is very good
16 circumstantial evidence of the fact that the
17 relationship between he and at least that child was
18 something more than casual and something more than
20 In that regard, we’ll submit, unless you
21 have questions.
22 THE COURT: Let me hear from the defense.
23 MR. ZONEN: Thank you.
24 MR. SANGER: I, once again, tried to keep
25 the brief brief. I hope the Court —
26 THE COURT: I appreciate you keeping your
27 briefs brief.
28 MR. SANGER: Yes. I don’t want a lack of 12176
1 volume to suggest that this didn’t take well into
2 the night to get done here. And I don’t want to
3 repeat everything, but I think because it is such an
4 important issue, we’re right at the end of the case,
5 I feel compelled to speak about it just briefly, if
6 I may.
7 First of all, this seems to come directly
8 within the California Supreme Court’s discussion in
9 the Carter case, which basically says it’s not
10 proper to bring in evidence that magnifies evidence
11 that the opposition has not had a chance to meet
12 squarely during the case-in-chief, which we haven’t,
13 because this was not offered, it was not hinted at.
14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from
15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had
16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.
17 I mean, we had no notice to deal with these
18 issues — with this issue at all. So there is
19 certainly unfair surprise, as stated directly in the
20 Carter case.
21 And Carter also says that the Court is
22 supposed to avoid dramatic evidence introduced late
23 in the trial that’s going to have an undue effect.
24 Now, as we pointed out, this was not
25 offered. I mean, this is really a stretch to even
26 come up with any kind of an argument as to why this
27 should — why they could even ask to bring this in.
28 And they’re not asking to bring it in as 1108 12177
1 evidence. They’re asking to bring it in as 1101(b)
3 And the idea is, I think they’ve said in
4 their pleadings, that this goes to the issue of
5 whether or not Mr. Jackson was shy or modest. Now,
6 that’s not what Mr. Zonen just said when he got up
7 here and argued. I think he shifted the argument a
8 bit, if I’m not mistaken, and talked about things
9 happening in the bedroom.
10 They didn’t offer — I mean, we can’t just
11 keep having a moving target here. They didn’t offer
12 it in their moving papers. They didn’t offer it for
13 that purpose. They offered it on the shy and modest
14 purpose. So it would be 1101(b) evidence on kind of
15 a collateral matter, if it ever happened. But it
16 didn’t happen in this case in the defense.
17 We went through and did a word search on the
18 entire transcript, several different words, “shy,”
19 “modest,” all sorts of things. We found one
20 question that used the word “shy,” not even in this
21 context. It had to do with whether or not a maid
22 saw Mr. Jackson change his shirt. And the objection
23 was sustained to that question. So it was never
24 answered. So it didn’t happen.
25 We also went through and — just to be sure,
26 and read — we read all the testimony from the key
27 witnesses in the defense who might have said
28 something like that if anybody said it. And the 12178
1 only thing we can come up with is an investigative
2 report where the word — I think “shy” — it was
3 either “shy” or “modest,” one of the two was used.
4 We quoted it in there. And it turns out that that
5 was never brought out from that witness on the
7 So it seemed to me that, when I was looking
8 at this, this was a pocket brief the District
9 Attorney had originally prepared in case somebody
10 did this. It didn’t happen. Now they’re trying to
11 bring it in by way of rebuttal, and it would just be
12 absolutely inappropriate as 1101, because it doesn’t
13 rebut anything, okay?
14 What really they’re trying to do, and I
15 think that’s what I heard Mr. Zonen just argue, is
16 they’re trying to argue this is 1108. And it
17 doesn’t meet the criteria for 1108. It doesn’t meet
18 the criteria the Court set down that it would be
19 somebody directly observing something. So it would
20 have the prejudicial effect of the jury considering
21 it, obviously, for 1108 purposes. Because it would
22 be very shocking to see pictures of — anatomical
23 pictures and all that sort of thing.
24 So just from that standpoint, they’ve made
25 no — show no basis. There’s no foundation to admit
26 this as rebuttal, because there’s — they haven’t
27 shown what they’re rebutting under 1101(b). And
28 obviously, if they did that, the prejudice would be 12179
1 so overwhelming, because it would go to the 1108 and
2 it shouldn’t come in for that reason.
3 And as we said before, 1108 — as the Court
4 is well aware, 1108 is a very delicate kind of an
5 issue. The jury is given tremendously prejudicial
6 evidence, that is, prejudicial in the sense that it
7 is propensity evidence, and that propensity
8 evidence — under this weird law we have in
9 California that doesn’t exist most other places,
10 propensity evidence is allowed to come in, but the
11 Court has to exercise discretion in limiting it, so
12 it doesn’t overwhelm the trial. And the Court made
13 those rulings. And to bring this in at this point
14 and emphasize 1108 in rebuttal with something that
15 isn’t even really 1108 evidence would be
16 tremendously prejudicial.
17 But when you get right down to it, the main
18 reason that it has to stay out is it violates
19 Crawford and the confrontation clause. It’s not
20 admissible hearsay. It is testimonial directly
21 under Crawford. This is the kind of stuff that
22 Crawford is talking about, when police officers do
23 interviews, and they get information and they write
24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and
25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates
26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.
27 So you would have a violation of a federal
28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180
1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.
2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you
3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,
4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under
5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that
6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and
7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally
8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if
9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral
11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about
12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I
13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?
15 MR. ZONEN: Just briefly with regards to
16 Crawford. This is not hearsay at all. It’s not an
17 exception to hearsay. It’s not hearsay.
18 The issue is whether or not this child had
19 knowledge of the existence of that particular spot.
20 And the evidence of his knowledge, certainly his
21 ability to draw that picture, would be
22 circumstantial evidence that he knew about it. It
23 would be the equivalent of a child being able to say
24 that a room was green. And he would only know that
25 if he had been in the room. It’s not for the truth
26 of the matter that the room is green. We can show
27 that independently with the photograph as can we
28 show the spot with the photograph. But the fact 12181
1 that a child would know that the room was green
2 would only be knowledge that the child would have
3 circumstantially because he was there or because
4 somebody told him.
5 In this particular case, it’s the type of
6 information that was not commonly available at the
7 time, and circumstantially it would be relevant for
8 the fact that he must have seen that particular
9 spot, and therefore it’s not testimonial. It’s not
10 communication in that regard. It would not fit
11 within Crawford. It’s simply not hearsay.
12 MR. SANGER: And if I may make just one
13 comment on that — I know we shouldn’t go back and
14 forth but —
15 THE COURT: I’d really like you not to do
17 MR. SANGER: Very well, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: I’m going to deny the request to
19 bring in the evidence of the blemished penis. This
20 is the reason: It’s twofold, really. And under a
21 352 analysis, the Court agrees with the defense,
22 that shyness really was not an issue of any
23 proportion. I think you’ve reminded me — I knew
24 there had been some statement somewhere in the trial
25 about shyness, but the — I think you’ve reviewed
26 that with me, and I think I agree with — my
27 recollection now has been refreshed to exactly what
28 that was. But I knew it was only a small thing to 12182
1 start with, if anything. And you’re saying it was
2 actually nothing.
3 But the analysis there would be, even if
4 shyness had been raised as an issue, the prejudicial
5 effect would far outweigh the probative value of the
6 shyness issue. And secondly, I think — even though
7 your analysis is I think correct, I keep going
8 through it, but I think it is not hearsay. I still
9 think Crawford would apply to the ability to
10 cross-examine the boy — or the — you know, Mr.
11 Chandler. He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,
12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would
13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.
14 Was there anything else we needed to discuss
15 before we brought the jury in?
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 4 of 4
Silva was asked to further clarify the directive from ranch manager Joe Marcus to refer to the Cascio family as “Tyson”:
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 3 of 4
Next, Sneddon repeatedly questioned Silva about Frank Cascio, his professional and personal associations with Jackson, the time period that he started using the alias “Tyson” (insinuating that Frank had a nefarious motive for using the alias), etc.:
May 9th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Francin Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco, Joseph Marcus, Part 2 of 4
After returning from recess, Sanger questioned Silva several security scares at Neverland, including an incident where a crazed fan was caught trespassing, and made it past all of the elaborate security measures! This fan was ultimately found on the top floor of the main house!