Skip to content

The Blog Wars: Update 1.25.2016

April 8, 2015

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,
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 and , respectively. I have reserved all rights to this work, which was first published on and 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

IP Address:
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.

This was Helena’s reply:

From:  <>
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:

Desiree <


I just saw this in my spam folder. I already read what you wrote with regards to my photos but I just wanted to add on to my comment.

I did not ask for you to take the pictures down. All I asked was attribution in the form of a link. You did that earlier but have made the decision to remove all of them. That’s fine by me. I have no problem being the owner of some of the rarest Michael Jackson-related images on the web. I am glad I watermarked the pictures I took with my camera.

Let me make it perfectly clear, though: me requesting that you remove the pictures has nothing to do with fear and, no, you should not take anything I’ve done as of late as a compliment. On the contrary, I was interested in your spin on the photos. I thought it was funny because none of you have read Victor Gutierrez’s book so the context may be off a bit in terms of understanding everything holistically.

So, I was not threatened in anyway whatsoever by anything any of you (you, Lynette, David, etc.) have written about Michael. I simply disagree. However, if I may, I will give you guys props for creating enough reasonable doubt as to his guilt. But, like I said, I just don’t agree and I don’t see it.

Personally, I would hope Michael Jackson was a child molester, was a pedophile, for the simple reason he would not have been crucified unjustly. Of course, I know that you believe the opposite, that he was tormented but I would feel so much better if he was not just a nice guy being mistreated. I mean, I was devastated after his death; I researched that ‘innocence’ side and thought he was made into the world’s punching bag, tortured because he was different.

but, having researched more (unlike for your blog, I only have one writer and my entries take longer to come by because I also have a full course load at school), I found that the likelihood of Michael having been guilty of molesting Jordie and Jason is highly probable, if not certain.

Bringing this to a close, because it’s getting long, I got upset because someone was deleting my comments over there. And I thought that was unfair, seeing that you guys had lifted my photos without a blog link. Also, just taking them is not cool.

Yes, the one from the ‘Mismatch’ post was done in my handwriting. I used it for the purpose of allowing the readers of my blog to understand what had been written in the original which appears in Gutierrez’s book, which you can see because he gives a written description of the drawing in his book. It’s why I placed everything written in an identical arrangement. I actually mentioned this in my blog entry…

Well, if I ever used anything–text, etc–from your site, I’d block quote and source like I do everything else. However, the likelihood of me using any of your content is very low, I can assure you. Why you’d even think I’d intentionally steal at the same time I made it known I didn’t want my pictures used by you guys without a link or my permission is bizarre; I’m in no way a hypocrite. Again, I am not breaking any copyright laws in photographing Gutierrez’s book either. I think I made that clear in my comment so I’ll leave it alone.

So, in sum, no, I had no problem with you guys using my photos, as long as you linked back to my site and said they were from Desiree Hill (me). No, I was never, ever intimidated by the content of your blog. Never, girlfriend. I’m not easily shaken, let me tell you. Like I said above, you guys are doing a great job in providing reasonable doubt. If I had a choice, Michael Jackson wouldn’t be a pedophile. He’d be the great entertainer that he was and he would have came out the closet with his homosexuality. (Of course, if he could’ve settled down with a nice woman, that would’ve been better but he was what he was…) However, reasonable doubt is a rhetorical tactic; it is not necessarily indicative of reality.

I do think Michael was a pedophile and I do think he was gay. He was, after all, a victim of child molestation himself…


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.

Desiree 9.4.10 postin my IP address on her blog.

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 11:00 pm

@ vindicatemj

No, no… I will not attack anyone on this thread. If they traveled to my blog, they’d see I’m very subdued. I only leave snarky and contemptuous comments here because I knew someone would eventually delete them and I figured: ‘Why not go out with a bang?’

Since you are allowing me to engage in a dialogue such ‘language’ and hostility is no longer needed. I don’t know about any of you, but I dislike preaching to the choir. If I can get into a lion’s den, I’d prefer it. I know it is unlikely that I’ll change any minds here (and vice versa; given the sources with proximity to Michael Jackson I’ve spoken to, I could never think he was innocent, never ever), but if I can understand the logic behind what I can’t help but view as delusional, as well as give you fans sparing practice, I think this all serves a purpose…

Anyway, I’ll answer your last question first:

If I were a 56-year-old woman who had done nothing but strike up a friendship with youngsters because they shared a like interest in the the Net, I would tell those parents–who, on that basis alone, believed our friendship odd because of the age difference–to shove it.

But what did you expect me to say to that? Using the internet is not unnatural nor is striking up friendships with youths–using a like interest in the internet as a catalyst–unnatural. People bond with whom they bond; Evan Chandler said it best when he stated ‘age in itself is not a horrible thing’.

But if I was the mother of a teenage son (or daughter) and a 56-year-old woman wanted to spend more time with my child than I did, to the point they want to share a bed with my teen when other beds are abundantly available, that’s a problem. Anyone who does not possess the street smarts to know that that’s a problem has a problem.

It is quite obvious that Michael Jackson could not give up the sleepovers, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. They were a compulsion. You may think it is based on his purity, innocence, and his lost childhood, but I think it reeked of a psychosexual need to be near young boys.

Based on what I’ve researched and with whom I’ve come into contact because on having my blog, I know he was a P. I know it. Is there evidence out there that says, without a doubt, he’s guilty. Well, no; all that exists is the anecdotes of witnesses who claim to have seen inappropriate conduct between Mike and boys. These witness have credibility issues in that public dogma says if you go to the tabloids, you are a liar.

On that tip, let me ask any and all of you this: Neverland employees who went to the tabloids are illegit, correct? Now, if you saw a tabloid story with the headline: DA TOM SNEDDON AND MJ JOURNALIST DIANE DIMOND CAUGHT IN COMPROMISING POSITION! would you not believe it? I know many of you believe–even if it is in your most fantastic speculative moments–Diane Dimond has to have done something to get all of her sources and documents. I know I used to joke about that when I still believed Michael was innocent.

Of course there exists selective attention and many people will believe what they want to believe, but tabloid magazines are not always full of false stories. At least with tabloids here in the US, many of their stories turn out to be true or, at least, partly true. Given the attention I pay to celebrity affairs (we all have our vices), I know the value of a tabloid story.

Anyway, it’s funny that you make a value judgment on Gutierrez and his sources (ie. other employees he’s spoken to) without knowing them yet you accuse me of not knowing Michael well enough, which keeps me thinking like a ‘hater’. That seems hypocritical.

I cannot say for sure whether or not Joy Robson pimped Wade to Michael but, if she had, I would have no problem saying she is lower than Gutierrez and any employee that sold a story to the tabloids before talking to police. The reality is we know none of these people. Michael’s songs are a reflection of his inner self, which is why I feel perturbed by his constant mentioning of children and childhood in songs dating before Thriller. His words, however, need to be given context.

If he’s sitting in front of a camera or knows he’s being recorded, I’ll have to take what he says with a grain of salt, knowing how image-conscious he was. However, if it’s something secretive, like those Glenda convos that were recorded without his knowledge, I’ll give it more weight. In those, he said he hated his ‘nigger hair’, which tells me he was a racist against blacks and saw himself as distinct from his own people.

I have read his Oxford speech and it is all PR and fluff. (I read it as it had been printed in Shmuley Boteach’s book ‘The Michael Jackson Tapes’, if that is the full version.) Michael hated his father (he mentioned him in the speech) and would regurgitate. Joe Jackson sexually abused Michael when he was a child, which is why Michael continued to sexually abuse other male children.

Do you not believe Michael was a victim of sexual abuse? By Joe and other men?

You know, you’re making Michael out to be a messiah and he was so far from it! Asking me to be cleansed by a man who was a P is kind of insulting. Mike’s behavior cannot be seen through any other prism than the one that showcases his behavior as unacceptable. I don’t believe people are so prurient that they see everything as dirty or sexual. But I do believe most people are intelligent enough to know when someone is COMPULSIVELY engaged in creepy behavior.

The ‘lost childhood’ garbage was PR spin. It was most likely a compromise between Sony and their billion-dollar man: they wanted to clean up his image, get him married off (LOL), end the ‘boy thing’, while Michael couldn’t really commit to all of the rules. They say, ‘Fine, you can’t give up the sleepovers, we’ll say you do it because you lost your childhood.’ We all know Michael loved being a star and being in the spotlight; his childhood was traumatic but he always said he’d never change a thing. So, the ‘lost childhood’ stuff is BS.

I don’t think Michael is being jeered for being different. He’s jeered because, in his compulsions, his ego and his detachment from reality, he refused to give up the boys. Knowing what I know from the source I have, I know for a fact Michael’s sleepovers and special friends weren’t ‘pure’ or ‘innocent’; they were sexual.

I think you guys should keep reading. I have researched extensively and I do know both sides. My aim is not to nail Mike to the cross but I do believe there are too many MJ fans that seem slightly delusional. You can believe what you’d like, I feel, but at least be able to defend it!

BTW, Michael Jackson wasn’t straight. (sorry so long)


desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.comSubmitted on 2010/09/30 at 11:01 pm@ AnnaI 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.


desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.comSubmitted on 2010/09/30 at 11:14 pmHaving 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.


x clip_image001[3]Veronique
desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.comSubmitted on 2010/10/01 at 8:15 pm@ vindicatemj“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 clip_image001[4]Desiree (aka Veronique)
desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.comSubmitted on 2010/10/02 at 11:27 pm@ Lynette: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…


clip_image001[5]Desiree (aka Veronique)
desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.comSubmitted on 2010/10/02 at 11:27 pm@ David: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.



Submitted on 2010/09/29 at 10:22 pm

I have two questions:

1. You quoted an interview with Geraldine Hughes. I want to know if you guys believe what she’d written in her book ‘Redemption’, that she’d heard a plot to extort? I was reading her book over the weekend and she claimed to have met Jordie Chandler two times at Rothman’s office but then called him a little white boy; Jordie was blacker (in skintone) than Michael Jackson (she was using a racial blah blah blah angle, if I were to keep it in context).

2. Have you ever fathomed that you could be wrong about Michael’s innocence, given such large payouts to Jordie and Jason; anecdotes of Michael’s odd behavior from employees like the Quindoys and Lemarques years before the 93 scandal; his refusal to abandon the sleepovers with boys; the nude boy books and the nudist magazines and art books featuring naked children, all legal, yes, but considered child erotica by the experts; La Toya Jackson saying she’d seen a check for a million dollars to Jimmy Safechuck’s dad (something Jack Gordon could not have seen, so he could not have forced her to ‘lie’ about it)…? Is it completely impossible?

I think both are non-inflammatory questions and I do truly hope that someone provides an answer. This is not about me; I would like to here your answers and I am trying to tread lightly so this can be a legitimate dialogue…

I will admit I do troll (another site comes to mind–not Jacko-related) from time to time but I will forgo ‘personal attacks’ if we can engage in discussion. I don’t understand the adoration for Michael given what I have researched, read, and who I have spoken to but I am curious…

I will read the rest of this post later…


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

Hi there…
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…

And another
Time: Tuesday October 5, 2010 at 3:52 am
IP Address:

Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.


Name: Desiree

Hi there,
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
IP Address:
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.

jessica’s twin 


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.

Name: Desiree
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
IP Address: 

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.

 Desiree CThomson email 1

Desiree CThomson email 2

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 .

Charles Thomson



It has been brought to my attention that you are telling people I run the anti-Michael Jackson website,

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

Charles Thomson

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
, 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: ]

Dear Charles,
Thank you for your email. In response to your report we have suspended the site.
If you ever wish to report an abuse of our services in the future please don’t hesitate to contact us.
The Yola Abuse Team
The Yola Site and the Service is a free service for businesses, organizations and individuals to create and grow a professional online presence. Yola reserves the right to terminate the service of any user that does not use our Site and Service for it’s intended purpose. |  Please review our Terms of Service | Visit our Report Abuse page to report any site that violates our these terms | Thank you for helping us maintain a high standard of professionalism on the web!
Your request:
Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Charles Thomson and I am a contributor at the Huffington Post.
The owner of one of your websites is impersonating me.
The website contains lots of wildly inaccurate and hugely slanderous claims about Michael Jackson. When Jackson’s fans are emailing the website to complain, the person replying is reportedly claiming to be me, and using an email address which is very similar to mine.
This is fraud/impersonation and it has the potential to be incredibly damaging to my reputation as a reporter.
Please could you intervene and stop your subscriber from impersonating me as quickly as possible.
Charles Thomson
Emailed from:

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.

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?”


Using Charles name on Topix2

Using Charles name on Topix

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.

Boy Chat laughter

Davids name on Boy Chat

Wacko Facts did go to a different webhosting site.They went to GoDaddy and the original site changed from Wacko Facts to MJ Facts so it was never taken down the original admin of the page moved it to another domain and changed the name. Here is a screen cap of a frequent commenter/ possible moderator of Topix discussing it. 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.

Here is another domain history for MJ Facts.

The worst part was there was nothing to retaliate for other than the exposure of the misuse of a similar looking email, an email used to mislead someone into thinking that it was the British journalist Charles Thomson that was the admin of a Michael Jackson hater site. According to this thread on Topix, that has had many comments deleted in the last week, the original admin of Wacko Facts had restored it in a short time.
Original Owner of MJ Facts

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.

~ Desiree

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.

Desiree <>


Name: Desiree

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.
@ Blaine:
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.
Take care,Desiree
Time: Sunday February 6, 2011 at 8:16 pm
IP Address:

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…

10 Comments leave one →
  1. April 27, 2017 3:53 am

    I read this piece of writing fully regarding the resemblance of
    most up-to-date and earlier technologies, it’s remarkable article.

  2. October 11, 2016 4:37 am

    I have posted a couple times already on here, as I said I am new in researching online but not new at all in defending MJ. I just cannot fathom this. I cannot even read this crazy woman’s words! My eyes start to glaze over, she just rambles on and on about some fantasy that is going on inside her head, and it’s creepy. Why is she so obsessed with “boylovers” and “boychats”? Just those words alone bother me. No sane person would take that much time to type out those icky words in a search bar, and yet she is doing “research” on them and declaring it so freely? Is she really just Victor G. in disguise?

    And here she has the gall to write these convoluted emails with so many big words and indignation as if she’s some sort of big shot but has no realization that of how cartoonish she sounds like Hannibal Lecter. Frankly, I don’t know how all you guys do it, but I am so glad you do. Thank you so much for your constant hard work and waging through this @#$% storm. I’ll be praying for you guys, and that the truth will prevail.

  3. Dee permalink
    July 16, 2015 4:55 am

    Whoever ‘Desiree’ is, she is clearly as obsessed with Michael and his ‘guilt’ as she suggests we are with the truth: his innocence. She thinks that because she writes relatively well, that her words come across as gospel, but in fact, if you look closely as I’m sure you guys do, there are so many questionable comments weaved into her seemingly desperate attempts to portray Michael as a guilty – and gay! – man. I don’t have time to list them all here, but let’s take her ludicrous allegations that Michael was gay, for starters. Anyone who has thoroughly researched human sexuality with an open mind will know that it is often – though not always – the case that gay males come from families in which the father has either been absent or a weak or effeminate role model. While this isn’t always the case, it is common, hence why vociferous voices in the gay lobby like to break down the stability of family through early and sometimes overly graphic sex education in schools, for example.

    On the contrary, as we know, Michael had an overly dominant father in every sense of the word. In addition, Michael was a deeply spiritual, religious man – even after he left the Witnesses – and his mission, if you like, was to heal and help the world through encouraging compassion and care in a child’s young years – the most crucial. The fact that his concern for and love of children has been twisted and maligned and turned into something sinister is sickening, and yet unsurprising when we consider that people like Desiree cannot quite comprehend or understand that a bed can quite easily be used by different people at different times without engaging the mental image of all its users together in some kind of orgy or the like. This kind of obsession with sex and sexuality is one of the main reasons why an innocent like Michael was so misunderstood.

    I was in the courtroom on the day the raid and findings were discussed. I was there when Mr Mesereau spoke of the small statues that were found, and listened as he lamented that it was not something that Michael, ever the gentleman, had wanted the world to know. The small statues – deemed by some as ‘pornographic’ – were totally heterosexual in nature. What amazed me was that the prosecution didn’t seem to quite understand that by presenting these as having been found next to Michael’s computer, they were actually digging themselves into a bigger hole by clutching at straws. Did they truly believe he was a paedophile, in spite of the adult ‘porn’ that they themselves were so eager to use to discredit his character?

    Desiree speaks of Liz Taylor having said that Michael was gay. I’d like some credible references to that, please. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that I have ever found or seen in which she states anything of the sort. And as for Sneddon and her suggestion that his vendetta (or ‘vendetta’, as she calls it), ‘is only natural for a former cop and a married, church-going father of 9’ – no sincere church-goer who knows and operates on Biblical principles would subscribe to the persecution of a man without absolute unequivocal evidence. No parent would seek to – even relish – the imprisonment of a father of young children. And no former cop would refuse to look at all the evidence with an open mind and without being motivated by such a vendetta and by hatred, unless of course, they were a racist cop with a wicked agenda.

    Through an inability to come to terms with the fact that Michael was truly vilified – crucified, if you like – and hounded to death, people like Desiree keep that very wicked agenda alive today. Others are still using Michael as their punch bag because they were abused when young and, instead of seeking restitution with their perpetrators, they are continuing to hate on Michael and to drag his name through the mud, which does victims of real abuse no good whatsoever. As Michael himself said, ‘Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons’ and no matter how much time and effort Desiree and others invest of their lives into maligning an innocent man, they will not succeed, ‘for there is nothing hidden that will not be made known’ (Luke 8:17). Oh yes, Sneddon should have known that scripture now, shouldn’t he? Our voices will outnumber the few detractors left out there and VMJ is leading the way.

  4. Judith Mason permalink
    April 12, 2015 6:55 pm

    Have you posted Part 2 of Blog Wars, or did I miss it somehow? Thank you.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      April 12, 2015 8:38 pm

      Not yet hopefully tomorrow.

  5. Judith Mason permalink
    April 8, 2015 5:03 pm

    Good Grief! Is this woman still as active and angry today as when these emails were written?

    • lynande51 permalink*
      April 8, 2015 8:10 pm

      She now posts as a guest contributor on MJ Facts. She was the author of the Jimmy Safechuck piece that was written recently. It is linked in the first part of the article.
      This is just the beginning. I will add another entry hopefully tomorrow that will take it through 2011 and 2012. Those are emails specifically to and from me Posts on her blog to and about Brett Barnes and two Michael Jackson Fans.I will also show the connection to a site called Topix and the comments that I had to collect from there and other places.
      She did just email and ask that we remove her email address and that was done. She also stated that I have a right to my opinion and she has a right to hers. I don’t believe that she read the post because I don’t offer an opinion and the post is all about her opinion.

      • Judith Mason permalink
        April 8, 2015 8:27 pm

        She certainly has her very strong view of Michael Jackson, but she also sounds fearsomely overwrought and really manic.

        • lynande51 permalink*
          April 9, 2015 7:07 am

          They look that way because they are all in one place and you can read them all at the same time. They didn’t arrive like that though some were closely clustered together.
          One thing I would like to point out is that she sought out and relies on something called statement analysis.
          Statement analysis is something that is used by law enforcement from time to time to determine the veracity of a suspect by examining a written statement made by that person. It should not be used by anyone to determine the veracity of the spoken word which is what a transcript is. It is someone else’s writing of someone else’s spoken word. Anyone that knows about oral communication knows that 93% of it is non verbal.
          Nonverbal communication is about the tone, pitch, speed and volume of the voice. That is about 38% then the largest percentage, the 55% is facial expression, body stance, eye contact and even things like respiration rate.
          Let’s make an example of Wade’s Today show interview. He was clear, concise, calm and relaxed. Pretty good for a victim speaking those words out loud for the first time on television.
          Then let’s look at the Tweet that Taj Jackson sent out in response to Wade’s interview. He wrote something that gives an example of how he felt about being a victim. He said in one of his tweets that his hands were shaking because he knew once he hit send his life would never be the same but he still hit send.
          He wrote about a note that Michael had written to his mother and said that we had all seen it. He posted it and it was the one that was taken from Vaccaro’s by the police storage space after Diane Dimond went to New Jersey and held up a pair of underwear she thought might belong to Michael Jackson.
          The note was telling Dee Dee to read a certain article to Taj TJ and Taryl.
          The police took it thinking that it meant something else.They tried to say that it was Michael in some strange way confessing.
          When I saw the note I knew one of the boys had been molested.I didn’t know for sure which one but I suspected it was Taj.
          I had watched Taj on the video of their duet song with Michael “Why” and If were to have guessed at the time it would have been him because of all the nonverbal cues he sent.When you watch it he is the only one of the boys that is completely covered by his clothes and his “personal space” is larger meaning people have to stay farther away for him to feel comfortable.
          Now if someone were to read these and see how many times she says that because of fourth hand information from an unnamed source she says that Joe Jackson molested his son Michael and had allowed others to molest him as well.She blatantly says that is how he became a pedophile. It isn’t the way people become pedophile but as you can tell from the emails she isn’t one to listen to a differing opinion.
          Then look at something else that happened when Wade first came forward.Taj spoke out Jermaine said it was bullshit and even Tom Mesereau said it was bullshit, but with more words. Wade had no reaction to them, no reply.
          Joe Jackson said he was doing it for money and Wade threatens to sue him? Why?

        • nannorris permalink
          April 9, 2015 10:54 pm

          Yes I remember that about Joe..I think it was TMZ that stopped Joe and asked about Wade and he said “He already got paid” and Wade lawyer threatened to sue Joe
          And Wade said he would continue to speak out, but he just did that one day of shows and then ran away to Hawaii.
          I also noticed that when they went to court in 2005, Wades future wife accompanied him, but not to the Today show.
          And Joy loved it when someone put a camera in her face, yet she hasnt said anything

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: