Rule number one: you can believe something in mass media only in case you hear it directly from a person (though video is better). Never believe quotes and exclusive interviews: there is a good chance it was never said at all. In the very best case it's a rehash of an old interview.
Example: Radaronline is now making a string of "exclusive" interviews with Jason Pfeiffer:
Secret Michael Jackson Voicemail: King Of Pop Caught On Tape ‘Shopping For Drugs’ Just Seven Weeks Before His Death
Crying Michael Jackson Spoke Of How He ‘Couldn’t Forgive’ Dad Joe For Childhood Abuse, Reveals Pal
Recently Jason gave an interview to "The Sun", Radaronline simply repeats what was said before...
At least they released a voicemail that Michael Jackson left to Pfeiffer.
For some reason his voice is called "slurring", though to me MJ sounds normal - another mass media trick.
Showing posts with label how to. Show all posts
Showing posts with label how to. Show all posts
17 Apr 2013
11 May 2012
Fans On Scott Thorson And Myths About Michael Jackson
I always loved history. I always thought it is fascinating how facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Why does it happen?.. Because people are either inaccurate and careless with the facts - or they try to distort them on purpose. I find it totally HILARIOUS how those who complain about lies and inaccuracies make lies and inaccuracies themselves!
Unfortunately Michael Jackson passed to the history almost three years ago. Nowadays mythologizers put their efforts into casting MJ into a bronze statue that has to stay in history. Here I want to offer a little (well, actually it's going to be quite long...) example of how it is going on.
I'm talking about a blog called http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/. I think it has several authors and they are quite fruitful. Let's examine their reaction towards a recent interview by Scott Thorson - I wrote about it: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html.
Here is a blogpost I'm going to analyse: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/lies-about-michael-jackson-will-scott-thorson-understand-that-blood-money-has-never-done-anyone-any-good/.
Let's start from the title of the blogpost. "LIES ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON. Will Scott Thorson blah-blah-blah..." A reader (who knows who is Scott Thorson) doesn't even need to read the post - title hints very clearly that Thorson is a liar!
Here I want to make a little nota bene: I, the author of this blog, have no idea whether Scott Thorson was telling the truth about his fling with MJ. I don't have any substantial proofs to believe in this or that option.
The question of proving is on the vindicatemj author's mind too: "However the main question which is on everyone’s mind is how to prove that Scott Thorson is telling lies about Michael Jackson". Please pay attention: the author isn't interested in finding out whether Thorson is telling the truth or not - no, the author is interested in proving that Thorson lies. Thus the whole blogpost is dedicated to proving that Thorson lied.
"The first part of the interview was about Liberace, but the public was of course interested only in Michael Jackson and held their breath waiting for the second part" - I believe that the mentioned public is actually the fans of MJ though.
The author quotes ET Online site:
http://www.etonline.com/news/121296_Liberace_s_Former_Lover_Details_Secret_Romance/index.html
The comment is as follows: "The text makes it clear that the above is taking place as a sort of a publicity campaign for the forthcoming movie about Liberace. However judging by the ET’s prelude to the story it leaves you with an uneasy feeling that the goal of the program (and movie?) is to eventually mix the names and images of MJ and Liberace together". Really?..
The author goes on discussing when exactly Scott was seduced by Liberace: at age 16 or at age 19. I would omit it, unlike the author I don't see really significant difference between 16 and 19. So, let's move (together with the author) to the second part of Thorson's interview: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance
"Let us not faint at the above" - the author urges. Err, faint?.. Mmkay.
"Scott is extremely cautious in making his allegations (interesting to find out why) and the most he says is that “the relationship crossed the boundaries” adding that this is all he is comfortable saying”"
Now I want to urge people reading this to watch the actual footage: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance/index.html
Scott Thorson admits that he had fling with MJ only because his interviewer pressed him!
"The ET text claims that Thorson detailed the ‘relationship’ with Michael Jackson in his book and this is a flat lie told by Entertainment Tonight for which the ET can and should be directly reprimanded. Thorson’s book written in 1988 (and not in 1998!) was solely about Liberace and absolutely not about Michael Jackson, not to mention the fact that there was nothing about the alleged ‘gay’ relationship with Michael there." Surprise-surprise! Mass media is inaccurate! The author doesn't seem like someone who used to work with mass media, otherwise he (or she) would know that the people who work in mass media are actually... people. Who have plenty things on their minds other than checking what exactly and where exactly was written. Accuracy is not what journalists are known for. That's for sure!
Actually I'm going to show you that the author of the analysed blogpost is a human too. Very human. And not accurate - to say the least...
But let's continue.
"We also learn from the ET that Thorson is planning a new book where he is evidently going to develop his novel ideas about Michael Jackson" - Oh really?.. Evidently?.. OK, life will show.
"It is clear that the ET program is probing the ground to see whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him" - Err, no. It's not clear. Does ET Online co-operates with Thorson on his new book?.. Why? Pay attention at the wording: "whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him". What "things" the author is talking about? That MJ might have had a gay fling?.. So, the author calls it "slandering"? The author is just outright homophobic. Gay sex isn't illegal in US (or in UK for that matter), isn't it? So why "slandering" then? I can imagine a possible opponent telling me: "Because it's not true!" The problem is this possible opponent has to prove first what is true and what is false and to do it using something more substantial than their emotions. Good luck to them!
The author goes on digging into history of Scott Thorson's claims about his fling with MJ. "Thorson’s story is not new. It goes back to 2004 when Michael Jackson was in the midst of his legal battle with the Arvizos and had no time or strength for disputing Scott Thorson’s ideas. His lawyer Steven Cochran angrily called the lies “false trash” and said they would take action but in the avalance that followed the story didn’t get the attention it deserved" - Dear author, your naivety kills me! MJ and his lawyers would be total idiots in case they gave "the attention it deserved". The deserved attention would create a huge tsunami of scandal around MJ and Thorson which would spiral into hell knows what. (The best way to deal with the situation was to allow the wave to calm down).
"However if you compare today’s story by Thorson with the one voiced back in 2004 you will see a decided difference – at the time, due to MJ’s vulnerability Scott’s allegations of a gay relationship with Michael Jackson were much more salacious while now he and Entertainment Tonight are much more cautious and are somewhat dancing around the theme (which makes you suspect that they are afraid of a lawsuit)" - Let's watch the video one more time. Christina McLarty was the one who was quite persistent asking Scott about the nature of his relationship with Michael. Thorson was definitely evasive, feeling uneasy about answering her questions... Does it look like he wanted to talk about his fling/whatever with MJ?.. It doesn't look so. It doesn't look "cautious" too, more like uneasy. Why uneasy?.. It's a different question. We may speculate about it, but a lawsuit... well, what laws did Thorson break here?.. I'm not a specialist in US law but I'm afraid no one would be able to sue the guy.
"The typical media report about Thorson’s story claimed that Scott had a gay affair with MJ and that this would be the crucial revelation for the child molestation case. This way the papers gave away the Prosecutors’ intentions to use the alleged MJ’s homosexuality as a bridge to paedophilia and a way to prove him to be a “boy abuser” " - The problems is the prosecution didn't do that though there were some circumstantial evidence of "the alleged MJ’s homosexuality". There are plenty of scientific and pseudo scientific discussions going on about how homosexuality and paedophilia are linked - I have no desire to go in-depth, but I'm quite sure that in case prosecution would try to prove that MJ was involved in homosexual acts with adult men the defence would provide plenty of experts who would argue about homosexuality and paedophilia to the point of exhaustion. Besides let's admit it: Scott Thorson doesn't have a reputation of a person who you're going to believe immediately.
Then the author continues making observation that there were different scandalous stories about MJ at the time the National Enquirer material with Thorson revelations appeared. The author's reasoning makes you think about some sort of a global mass media conspiracy against Michael Jackson. The reality is... The author apparently doesn't read newspapers and watch TV (or maybe he/she reads/watches only something about MJ). Otherwise he or she would know that in case something scandalous of a magnitude of MJ's trial takes place mass media makes everything possible to add fuel to the fire. That's not about Michael Jackson - that's about mass media!
Let's move to a funniest part of the vindicatemj blogpost. The author decided to analyse the National Enquirer 2004 article. (Of course the author never read the the article itself . Unfortunately I didn't save it when it was available online - but who knew?..).
"The story told by the National Enquirer was horrendous" - Horrendous?.. Really?Did the author ever had sex him/herself?..
Here is an article the author refers to:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-04-15/gossip/18259018_1_scott-thorson-hugh-hefner-liberace "Michael “motioned him over to the bed”? He “made the first move”? He “begged Scott to leave Liberace”? And Scott said “No” to him?? Despite the fact that his love affair with Liberace was drawing to an end???" - I suspect that if the story is true Thorson probably used to kick himself for not yielding to MJ's beggings. Very soon MJ released "Thriller", meanwhile Liberace kicked Scott out. But how the author could know that Thorson knew at the time that his elderly lover is going to kick him out?..
The next quotation is epic: "Michael, that innocent little dove who even in the 90s made rounds of people’s homes with the Jehovah’s Witnesses books in his hands to preach the Gospel?" Innocent little WHO?.. And wtf the dove was doing in the 90s going door to door if he left Jehovah's Witnesses for good by the end of 80-s??? BTW can we call this slander because this information is obviously false?
"And does Scott Thorson remember what Michael was like during that period of time? Could that shy and timid guy confidently “motion” anyone to himself? Is he describing someone street smart or the painfully shy young man Michael actually was?" - How in hell the author would know what MJ was like during that period of time? This pseudo psychology is just ridiculous.
"We do not expect these liars to tell us the truth, but why can’t these people report even their lies correctly?" - I'm afraid for the very same reason why the dove used to distribute Jehovah's Witnesses literature in the 90-s.
"today’s story from the same Scott Thorson sounds much more reserved as he is simply afraid to repeat it the way it was told back in 2004" - Probably he is afraid of manic fans... It's a real possibility.
The author goes on discussing once again why Tom Sneddon wasn't interested in Thorson as a witness despite the fact that according to National Enquirer Scott saw porn magazines with young boys (btw how young?..) in MJ's possession and whether it is possible to deceive a polygraph. There is a lot of homemade psychology too: "Scott Thorson was most sophisticated in matters of sex while Michael was shy, “prissy, proper and prim” (according to Kit Culkin) and would blush at any question about sex or mere profanity as a “Victorian old maid”" - For some reason prissy, proper and primgirls people have sex too. I observed a couple of examples first hand.
"He [Kit Culkin] also said that Michael was an absolute “scaredy-cat” or excessively fearful as the dictionary puts it - and this makes the story about him being so bold in a stranger’s home as to make passes at Scott look highly dubious to me" - Umm... Fear of being caught actually could turn on, besides MJ used to be bold not even in strangers' houses, but also in some public places...
"Thorson at the time was a sophisticated and street smart guy with more than 4 years of homosexual love behind his back while Michael Jackson was still a baby and a “Victorian maid” who made rounds of other people’s houses as a devout Jehovah’s Witness preaching God and the way of life according to the Bible" -I love expression 4 years of homosexual love behind his back. Baby Michael at the time had more than a decade in show business behind his back - show business in 70-s, with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll in it's full bloom. I suspect he wasn't as naive as the author tries so hard to portray him. Besides perhaps a naive boy might be fascinated by a street smart guy like Thorson.
The author cites quite a well-known among fans rebuttal posted originally on a National Enquirer board by... well, by an anonymous. Supposedly someone who knew MJ in person.
Here is this message:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances.
Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott.
Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course...Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face).
They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
The serious problem of this message is that ANYONE could write it. Yeah, including a fan who NEVER even met MJ in person!
The author goes on with their analysis trying to figure out when MJ's trysts with Scott supposedly took place. It takes the author plenty of paragraphs to figure out at last that MJ was really in London at the same time as Liberace and Thorson. The author apparently doesn't know how to use google. Just google Liberace and lord Montagu and you'll stumble upon several links mentioning MJ as well. Here is a picture: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/958444/?type=display (unfortunately it's too little, perhaps there are bigger copies somewhere in the web). Here we can see Lord Montagu, Liberace next to him, Scott Thorson on the back seat and do you recognise that guy in a fur coat?.. yeah, it's Michael Jackson! http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4462266.The_way_you_made_us_feel___an_appreciation_of_Michael_Jackson/?ref=rss
There is even footage of all four of them in this car somewhere on youtube (I'm too lazy to find it now).
"Frankly, the timeline did not convince me that Thorson could see Michael Jackson in London in the summer of 1981" - the author tells us. Would the pictures convince him/her?.. The picture of MJ, Thorson, Liberace and lord Montagu in the car was even shown during Thorson's interview to ET Online.
"How could he if Michael was there in May-September 1981 while Thorson was busy with his cocaine/murder/witness event at about the same period of time?" - Oh, Scott even didn't have time for two shags?.. It doesn't take too much time normally.
An interesting part of the blogpost to me personally was quoting of Roger Jacobs story that I referred to in my previous blogpost. I wonder whether the author managed to find it him/herself or just read my blogpost? (I tend to believe the second option since the author even wasn't able to find out whether Thorson and MJ met in London in 1981).
"Truth is the only goal worth paying, working and living for" - the author tells us. I'm impressed!
"The only thing which I don’t like about his story is that he claims that Thorson passed several polygraph tests" - ugh... So, "Roger Jacobs is a serious journalist – you can tell it by the manner of his writing", you are an ardent champion of truth, but you don't like several polygraph tests statement?.. So, does it mean that the author doesn't believe "a serious journalist" on this matter but for some reason he or she believes all other things that Jacobs has to say or does it mean that the author actually doesn't like the truth?..
It's called "twisted mind" I think.
I want to return to what I began with: facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Above is an example of how a fan is trying to make a myth. My goal is to try to separate myths from the reality. It doesn't matter who makes those myths: fans, journalists, haters... Inaccuracies, distortions and agendas - that's what historians always have to deal with.
Update: It seems impossible now to find messages posted on National Enquirer site in 2004. But this is supposedly a full text of message left by... errr, I don't know who. It's much longer than the text quoted on vinicatemj blog. Here it is:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
Please.
Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.
There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.
Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.
So, here we have a lot of different information, though it is still unknown who is the author. The most interesting part that speaks for itself is in bold. The third child is Blanket, his mother... According to MJ himself it was a surrogate who had a baby for him...
Yeah, nice rebuttal.
Unfortunately Michael Jackson passed to the history almost three years ago. Nowadays mythologizers put their efforts into casting MJ into a bronze statue that has to stay in history. Here I want to offer a little (well, actually it's going to be quite long...) example of how it is going on.
I'm talking about a blog called http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/. I think it has several authors and they are quite fruitful. Let's examine their reaction towards a recent interview by Scott Thorson - I wrote about it: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html.
Here is a blogpost I'm going to analyse: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/lies-about-michael-jackson-will-scott-thorson-understand-that-blood-money-has-never-done-anyone-any-good/.
Let's start from the title of the blogpost. "LIES ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON. Will Scott Thorson blah-blah-blah..." A reader (who knows who is Scott Thorson) doesn't even need to read the post - title hints very clearly that Thorson is a liar!
Here I want to make a little nota bene: I, the author of this blog, have no idea whether Scott Thorson was telling the truth about his fling with MJ. I don't have any substantial proofs to believe in this or that option.
The question of proving is on the vindicatemj author's mind too: "However the main question which is on everyone’s mind is how to prove that Scott Thorson is telling lies about Michael Jackson". Please pay attention: the author isn't interested in finding out whether Thorson is telling the truth or not - no, the author is interested in proving that Thorson lies. Thus the whole blogpost is dedicated to proving that Thorson lied.
"The first part of the interview was about Liberace, but the public was of course interested only in Michael Jackson and held their breath waiting for the second part" - I believe that the mentioned public is actually the fans of MJ though.
The author quotes ET Online site:
http://www.etonline.com/news/121296_Liberace_s_Former_Lover_Details_Secret_Romance/index.html
The comment is as follows: "The text makes it clear that the above is taking place as a sort of a publicity campaign for the forthcoming movie about Liberace. However judging by the ET’s prelude to the story it leaves you with an uneasy feeling that the goal of the program (and movie?) is to eventually mix the names and images of MJ and Liberace together". Really?..
The author goes on discussing when exactly Scott was seduced by Liberace: at age 16 or at age 19. I would omit it, unlike the author I don't see really significant difference between 16 and 19. So, let's move (together with the author) to the second part of Thorson's interview: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance
"Let us not faint at the above" - the author urges. Err, faint?.. Mmkay.
"Scott is extremely cautious in making his allegations (interesting to find out why) and the most he says is that “the relationship crossed the boundaries” adding that this is all he is comfortable saying”"
Now I want to urge people reading this to watch the actual footage: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance/index.html
Scott Thorson admits that he had fling with MJ only because his interviewer pressed him!
"The ET text claims that Thorson detailed the ‘relationship’ with Michael Jackson in his book and this is a flat lie told by Entertainment Tonight for which the ET can and should be directly reprimanded. Thorson’s book written in 1988 (and not in 1998!) was solely about Liberace and absolutely not about Michael Jackson, not to mention the fact that there was nothing about the alleged ‘gay’ relationship with Michael there." Surprise-surprise! Mass media is inaccurate! The author doesn't seem like someone who used to work with mass media, otherwise he (or she) would know that the people who work in mass media are actually... people. Who have plenty things on their minds other than checking what exactly and where exactly was written. Accuracy is not what journalists are known for. That's for sure!
Actually I'm going to show you that the author of the analysed blogpost is a human too. Very human. And not accurate - to say the least...
But let's continue.
"We also learn from the ET that Thorson is planning a new book where he is evidently going to develop his novel ideas about Michael Jackson" - Oh really?.. Evidently?.. OK, life will show.
"It is clear that the ET program is probing the ground to see whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him" - Err, no. It's not clear. Does ET Online co-operates with Thorson on his new book?.. Why? Pay attention at the wording: "whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him". What "things" the author is talking about? That MJ might have had a gay fling?.. So, the author calls it "slandering"? The author is just outright homophobic. Gay sex isn't illegal in US (or in UK for that matter), isn't it? So why "slandering" then? I can imagine a possible opponent telling me: "Because it's not true!" The problem is this possible opponent has to prove first what is true and what is false and to do it using something more substantial than their emotions. Good luck to them!
The author goes on digging into history of Scott Thorson's claims about his fling with MJ. "Thorson’s story is not new. It goes back to 2004 when Michael Jackson was in the midst of his legal battle with the Arvizos and had no time or strength for disputing Scott Thorson’s ideas. His lawyer Steven Cochran angrily called the lies “false trash” and said they would take action but in the avalance that followed the story didn’t get the attention it deserved" - Dear author, your naivety kills me! MJ and his lawyers would be total idiots in case they gave "the attention it deserved". The deserved attention would create a huge tsunami of scandal around MJ and Thorson which would spiral into hell knows what. (The best way to deal with the situation was to allow the wave to calm down).
"However if you compare today’s story by Thorson with the one voiced back in 2004 you will see a decided difference – at the time, due to MJ’s vulnerability Scott’s allegations of a gay relationship with Michael Jackson were much more salacious while now he and Entertainment Tonight are much more cautious and are somewhat dancing around the theme (which makes you suspect that they are afraid of a lawsuit)" - Let's watch the video one more time. Christina McLarty was the one who was quite persistent asking Scott about the nature of his relationship with Michael. Thorson was definitely evasive, feeling uneasy about answering her questions... Does it look like he wanted to talk about his fling/whatever with MJ?.. It doesn't look so. It doesn't look "cautious" too, more like uneasy. Why uneasy?.. It's a different question. We may speculate about it, but a lawsuit... well, what laws did Thorson break here?.. I'm not a specialist in US law but I'm afraid no one would be able to sue the guy.
"The typical media report about Thorson’s story claimed that Scott had a gay affair with MJ and that this would be the crucial revelation for the child molestation case. This way the papers gave away the Prosecutors’ intentions to use the alleged MJ’s homosexuality as a bridge to paedophilia and a way to prove him to be a “boy abuser” " - The problems is the prosecution didn't do that though there were some circumstantial evidence of "the alleged MJ’s homosexuality". There are plenty of scientific and pseudo scientific discussions going on about how homosexuality and paedophilia are linked - I have no desire to go in-depth, but I'm quite sure that in case prosecution would try to prove that MJ was involved in homosexual acts with adult men the defence would provide plenty of experts who would argue about homosexuality and paedophilia to the point of exhaustion. Besides let's admit it: Scott Thorson doesn't have a reputation of a person who you're going to believe immediately.
Then the author continues making observation that there were different scandalous stories about MJ at the time the National Enquirer material with Thorson revelations appeared. The author's reasoning makes you think about some sort of a global mass media conspiracy against Michael Jackson. The reality is... The author apparently doesn't read newspapers and watch TV (or maybe he/she reads/watches only something about MJ). Otherwise he or she would know that in case something scandalous of a magnitude of MJ's trial takes place mass media makes everything possible to add fuel to the fire. That's not about Michael Jackson - that's about mass media!
Let's move to a funniest part of the vindicatemj blogpost. The author decided to analyse the National Enquirer 2004 article. (Of course the author never read the the article itself . Unfortunately I didn't save it when it was available online - but who knew?..).
"The story told by the National Enquirer was horrendous" - Horrendous?.. Really?
Here is an article the author refers to:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-04-15/gossip/18259018_1_scott-thorson-hugh-hefner-liberace "Michael “motioned him over to the bed”? He “made the first move”? He “begged Scott to leave Liberace”? And Scott said “No” to him?? Despite the fact that his love affair with Liberace was drawing to an end???" - I suspect that if the story is true Thorson probably used to kick himself for not yielding to MJ's beggings. Very soon MJ released "Thriller", meanwhile Liberace kicked Scott out. But how the author could know that Thorson knew at the time that his elderly lover is going to kick him out?..
The next quotation is epic: "Michael, that innocent little dove who even in the 90s made rounds of people’s homes with the Jehovah’s Witnesses books in his hands to preach the Gospel?" Innocent little WHO?.. And wtf the dove was doing in the 90s going door to door if he left Jehovah's Witnesses for good by the end of 80-s??? BTW can we call this slander because this information is obviously false?
"And does Scott Thorson remember what Michael was like during that period of time? Could that shy and timid guy confidently “motion” anyone to himself? Is he describing someone street smart or the painfully shy young man Michael actually was?" - How in hell the author would know what MJ was like during that period of time? This pseudo psychology is just ridiculous.
"We do not expect these liars to tell us the truth, but why can’t these people report even their lies correctly?" - I'm afraid for the very same reason why the dove used to distribute Jehovah's Witnesses literature in the 90-s.
"today’s story from the same Scott Thorson sounds much more reserved as he is simply afraid to repeat it the way it was told back in 2004" - Probably he is afraid of manic fans... It's a real possibility.
The author goes on discussing once again why Tom Sneddon wasn't interested in Thorson as a witness despite the fact that according to National Enquirer Scott saw porn magazines with young boys (btw how young?..) in MJ's possession and whether it is possible to deceive a polygraph. There is a lot of homemade psychology too: "Scott Thorson was most sophisticated in matters of sex while Michael was shy, “prissy, proper and prim” (according to Kit Culkin) and would blush at any question about sex or mere profanity as a “Victorian old maid”" - For some reason prissy, proper and prim
"He [Kit Culkin] also said that Michael was an absolute “scaredy-cat” or excessively fearful as the dictionary puts it - and this makes the story about him being so bold in a stranger’s home as to make passes at Scott look highly dubious to me" - Umm... Fear of being caught actually could turn on, besides MJ used to be bold not even in strangers' houses, but also in some public places...
"Thorson at the time was a sophisticated and street smart guy with more than 4 years of homosexual love behind his back while Michael Jackson was still a baby and a “Victorian maid” who made rounds of other people’s houses as a devout Jehovah’s Witness preaching God and the way of life according to the Bible" -
The author cites quite a well-known among fans rebuttal posted originally on a National Enquirer board by... well, by an anonymous. Supposedly someone who knew MJ in person.
Here is this message:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances.
Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott.
Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course...Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face).
They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
The serious problem of this message is that ANYONE could write it. Yeah, including a fan who NEVER even met MJ in person!
The author goes on with their analysis trying to figure out when MJ's trysts with Scott supposedly took place. It takes the author plenty of paragraphs to figure out at last that MJ was really in London at the same time as Liberace and Thorson. The author apparently doesn't know how to use google. Just google Liberace and lord Montagu and you'll stumble upon several links mentioning MJ as well. Here is a picture: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/958444/?type=display (unfortunately it's too little, perhaps there are bigger copies somewhere in the web). Here we can see Lord Montagu, Liberace next to him, Scott Thorson on the back seat and do you recognise that guy in a fur coat?.. yeah, it's Michael Jackson! http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4462266.The_way_you_made_us_feel___an_appreciation_of_Michael_Jackson/?ref=rss
There is even footage of all four of them in this car somewhere on youtube (I'm too lazy to find it now).
"Frankly, the timeline did not convince me that Thorson could see Michael Jackson in London in the summer of 1981" - the author tells us. Would the pictures convince him/her?.. The picture of MJ, Thorson, Liberace and lord Montagu in the car was even shown during Thorson's interview to ET Online.
"How could he if Michael was there in May-September 1981 while Thorson was busy with his cocaine/murder/witness event at about the same period of time?" - Oh, Scott even didn't have time for two shags?.. It doesn't take too much time normally.
An interesting part of the blogpost to me personally was quoting of Roger Jacobs story that I referred to in my previous blogpost. I wonder whether the author managed to find it him/herself or just read my blogpost? (I tend to believe the second option since the author even wasn't able to find out whether Thorson and MJ met in London in 1981).
"Truth is the only goal worth paying, working and living for" - the author tells us. I'm impressed!
"The only thing which I don’t like about his story is that he claims that Thorson passed several polygraph tests" - ugh... So, "Roger Jacobs is a serious journalist – you can tell it by the manner of his writing", you are an ardent champion of truth, but you don't like several polygraph tests statement?.. So, does it mean that the author doesn't believe "a serious journalist" on this matter but for some reason he or she believes all other things that Jacobs has to say or does it mean that the author actually doesn't like the truth?..
It's called "twisted mind" I think.
I want to return to what I began with: facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Above is an example of how a fan is trying to make a myth. My goal is to try to separate myths from the reality. It doesn't matter who makes those myths: fans, journalists, haters... Inaccuracies, distortions and agendas - that's what historians always have to deal with.
Update: It seems impossible now to find messages posted on National Enquirer site in 2004. But this is supposedly a full text of message left by... errr, I don't know who. It's much longer than the text quoted on vinicatemj blog. Here it is:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
Please.
Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.
There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.
Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.
So, here we have a lot of different information, though it is still unknown who is the author. The most interesting part that speaks for itself is in bold. The third child is Blanket, his mother... According to MJ himself it was a surrogate who had a baby for him...
Yeah, nice rebuttal.
29 May 2011
How to read
I decided to write about how to read and understand articles (and other mass media stuff). It will be connected with MJ (since this blog is about him), but he is only an example here.
This is an article by Maureen Orth from Vanity Fair magazine. It is very old, but at least it is not too long to put its analisys here.
I will quote parts in italics that I will make comments on.
I will skip almost all of the first paragraph, though why Lisa Marie is called "bride", she and MJ were already married for a year (cultural differences?..)
When the show ended, many with a detailed knowledge of the case were appalled by what ABC News had allowed Jackson to get away with
Who were those "many"?
and by Sawyer's lack of preparation or her inability to follow up within the format dictated by the Jackson forces
Lol at lack of preparation - lack of preparation for interviews is a normal state for most of journalists, even those who are paid huge sums of money for their blabbing in front of TV cameras.
Controversy raged for days over the way ABC had bent network news standards to accommodate Jackson's many demands
Did they really bent something or it was just lack of preparation - as always? Maureen needs to make her mind on the subject.
not to mention the outcry over the cruel revenge tone and anti-Semitic lyrics in his songs
I believe the mentioned songs is actually "Scream". (Being a foreigner and having very limited knowledge on american slang I will stay out of discussion about controversial lyrics of this song).
Sources close to the family of the boy allegedly molested have said that they are considering whether Jackson's specific references to the sexual allegations in the case were a breach of the contract reached in the enormous settlement he paid for his young accuser to drop the charges.
Who are those sources?
Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who has seen the photographs of Jackson's genitalia, was upset enough after watching Sawyer's interview to speak to me on the record. "Regarding the markings," Sneddon says, "his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case."
Did these markings exist or didn they not exist, did Jordan's description match or did it not... Very hazily.
Others familiar with the evidence are more forthcoming. They say there are definite markings on Jackson's genital area, including a discoloration on his testicles.
Who are those others familiar with the evidence? Is it Sneddon himself who asked Maureen Orth not to disclose him as a source of information, was it someone who took part in the investigation and saw photos or was present during the strip search, was it someone familiar with the evidence (that is MJ's genitalia - lol!) or was it Maureen Orth herself who scratched her head and decided to write smth. that would look interesting?
(Jackson admitted in his live interview with Oprah Winfrey in February 1993 that he suffers from the skin disorder vitiligo, which causes discoloration.)
As my knowledge of English allows me to understand discoloration means lighter spot on a darker surface. And yes, vitiligo means appearance of white spots on skin - they are white or lighter than other parts of skin because they lack melanin - pigment that colours our skin.
According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson's penis.
Um... I'm confused. Why dark spot?.. If it is discoloration - it must be light!
By the way is it possible to read those sworn affidavits? I would love to.
The boy who had accused Jackson of sexually molesting him, according to those familiar with the evidence, was able to draw—first for the district attorney, then for his own lawyers—an accurate picture of the dark spot on Jackson's penis. The boy's drawings were sealed in an envelope and clearly postmarked on a postal meter before the police ever photographed Jackson. According to these sources, the boy's drawings were an accurate match of the photographs.
I'm still interested who ar those familiar with the evidence. Was information about accurate match contained in those above mentioned affidavits? Did those who were present during the strip search knew how Jordan's drawing looked? Did Maureen Orth get this information directly from Tom Sneddon who I believe saw both the drawing and MJ's private parts?
The boy got "in excess of $25 million," according to sources close to the family, and his parents were also paid off in the millions.
Those sources close to the family were not very correct, Jordan got only little bit more than 15 million.
People close to the investigation say that Jackson's lawyers kept putting off any depositions, and agreed to settle the night before Jackson was to have been put under oath.
Once again: who are those people?
In answering a civil case in which five former bodyguards accused Jackson of firing them because "they knew too much," Jackson did invoke the Fifth Amendment on the subject of alleged child molestation. The suit, dismissed since the PrimeTime Live interview, was not mentioned by Sawyer.
There were plenty of people who used to sue MJ for different reasons - did Sawer had to mention everybody?.. (And I think it is believed to be more appropriate to kill those who "know too much", not to fire them).
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 "at play," and according to one, that book "is often found in the home of pedophiles."
Lewd?.. It depends on viewer's opinion. As far as I remember there were one or two books seized from Neverland which really contain pictures of undressed or scantily dressed kids. Perhaps police really often finds those books in the home of pedophiles, though those books are not pornographic.
Law-enforcement sources, however, confirm that there is another boy who has a lawyer and is currently negotiating a settlement with Jackson. Of the boys mentioned in the district attorneys' press release who accused Jackson of sexual misconduct and who are unwilling to testify, Sneddon says, "The status regarding these two is basically the same."
At one point Sawyer said, "None of the employees who claimed to have seen questionable things had a story that could be confirmed by a child." Again, Sawyer is contradicted by law-enforcement sources. Two years ago, Jackson's personal maid, Blanca Francia, told police, the Los Angeles Times, and the tabloid TV show Hard Copy that she had seen Jackson a number of times in the nude with young boys and found a picture of an apparently nude boy in Jackson's room. Under oath she also said she found Jackson in bed with several boys, and a young boy with him in the same sleeping bag. She discovered $300 in the boy's pocket (which he had admitted Jackson had given to him).
Actually those multiple boys was Blanca Francia's son.
The boy himself, according to sources close to the case, was considering going into the witness-protection program—such was his fear of the retribution he would suffer by publicly alleging that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
Who are these sources close to the case?
The witness-protection-program idea fell through, however, when neither state nor federal authorities offered it
Hm, why?
While Jackson has gone on to marry and become the stepfather of Elvis Presley's grandchildren, Jackson's close involvement with the boy ultimately ripped the boy's floundering family apart. After the settlement, the second marriages of both his parents ended in divorce. The boy no longer sees or speaks to his mother, whom he blames for allowing Jackson to become so intimate with him. He has not seen his eight-year-old sister in two years, or his stepfather, who essentially raised him. Now 15, the boy lives with his stepmother. He is not in therapy. He continues to have a relationship with his father, who was accused by Jackson's side of extortion but whom authorities declined to prosecute, saying there was not enough evidence—another fact not mentioned by Diane Sawyer. The boy's father and stepfather, once friends, are now suing each other.
Source???
Liz Smith has reported that Jackson wanted Princess Diana to be with him on the Sawyer interview, to commiserate about the sufferings imposed by tabloid coverage, and that he queried the British Embassy in Washington about being knighted by the Queen for "his work with little children." According to an observer, he actually was working behind the scenes to see if the Queen would knight him right there on PrimeTime Live.
Who is Liz Smith and where did she get her information from?
ABC News's credibility was seriously undermined when it was revealed that the network had electronically altered a pre-taped segment of Jackson because he didn't care for the way the lighting cast lines on his face.
What some lines on a face have to do with credibility?
Executives at CBS and NBC said that Jackson's handlers had clearly been looking for a "package." (In the interest of full disclosure, my husband, Tim Russert, is Washington-bureau chief of NBC News, with no responsibility for prime-time programming.) A producer from one network told me, "It's difficult to pretend there was no quid pro quo in the ABC deal. Jackson's people approached a bunch of us. Basically they said, 'Come back to us with a proposition, and not just what you can do with your news division—that is not enough.'"
I guess I understood! This article is an impact from Maureen Orth to ABC! (Or to Diane Sawyer personally. Or both.) Journalists' undercarpet fights? Boring, sorry.
In addition, Sawyer had "get-togethers" with Jackson and Presley before the expensively produced interview, which is not her usual practice.
Here Maureen Orth tries to emphasize that Sawyer was not unbiased towards MJ.
Oh yes, this interview was a deal - so what?.. Maureen Orth was not born yesterday (I suspect), some of her readers were not born yesterday as well.
And contrary to news-show procedures, the air-conditioning remained on loud while Sawyer interviewed Jackson, causing a strange background noise. The cool air was necessary, veteran soundmen say, because the lights on Jackson were so hot that his thick pancake makeup and lipstick would have melted otherwise, and his false eyelashes would have come off.
Looool, so normally people who are interviewed have to sweat like marathon runners under heating sun?.. Great practice!
"I have no idea what the purpose of her show is," District Attorney Sneddon wondered, somewhat taken aback after having spent three hours on a Saturday afternoon helping to prime one of Sawyer's producers. "Is it the Evening News or Hard Copy?" Good question. Whatever it was, 60 million Americans and untold millions around the world got something less than the truth.
What was the purpose of the article? To butt ABC and Diane Sawyer or to throw a stone at MJ? Or both? Well, I believe honorarium was a serious factor too!
This is an article by Maureen Orth from Vanity Fair magazine. It is very old, but at least it is not too long to put its analisys here.
I will quote parts in italics that I will make comments on.
I will skip almost all of the first paragraph, though why Lisa Marie is called "bride", she and MJ were already married for a year (cultural differences?..)
When the show ended, many with a detailed knowledge of the case were appalled by what ABC News had allowed Jackson to get away with
Who were those "many"?
and by Sawyer's lack of preparation or her inability to follow up within the format dictated by the Jackson forces
Lol at lack of preparation - lack of preparation for interviews is a normal state for most of journalists, even those who are paid huge sums of money for their blabbing in front of TV cameras.
Controversy raged for days over the way ABC had bent network news standards to accommodate Jackson's many demands
Did they really bent something or it was just lack of preparation - as always? Maureen needs to make her mind on the subject.
not to mention the outcry over the cruel revenge tone and anti-Semitic lyrics in his songs
I believe the mentioned songs is actually "Scream". (Being a foreigner and having very limited knowledge on american slang I will stay out of discussion about controversial lyrics of this song).
Sources close to the family of the boy allegedly molested have said that they are considering whether Jackson's specific references to the sexual allegations in the case were a breach of the contract reached in the enormous settlement he paid for his young accuser to drop the charges.
Who are those sources?
Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who has seen the photographs of Jackson's genitalia, was upset enough after watching Sawyer's interview to speak to me on the record. "Regarding the markings," Sneddon says, "his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case."
Did these markings exist or didn they not exist, did Jordan's description match or did it not... Very hazily.
Others familiar with the evidence are more forthcoming. They say there are definite markings on Jackson's genital area, including a discoloration on his testicles.
Who are those others familiar with the evidence? Is it Sneddon himself who asked Maureen Orth not to disclose him as a source of information, was it someone who took part in the investigation and saw photos or was present during the strip search, was it someone familiar with the evidence (that is MJ's genitalia - lol!) or was it Maureen Orth herself who scratched her head and decided to write smth. that would look interesting?
(Jackson admitted in his live interview with Oprah Winfrey in February 1993 that he suffers from the skin disorder vitiligo, which causes discoloration.)
As my knowledge of English allows me to understand discoloration means lighter spot on a darker surface. And yes, vitiligo means appearance of white spots on skin - they are white or lighter than other parts of skin because they lack melanin - pigment that colours our skin.
According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson's penis.
Um... I'm confused. Why dark spot?.. If it is discoloration - it must be light!
By the way is it possible to read those sworn affidavits? I would love to.
The boy who had accused Jackson of sexually molesting him, according to those familiar with the evidence, was able to draw—first for the district attorney, then for his own lawyers—an accurate picture of the dark spot on Jackson's penis. The boy's drawings were sealed in an envelope and clearly postmarked on a postal meter before the police ever photographed Jackson. According to these sources, the boy's drawings were an accurate match of the photographs.
I'm still interested who ar those familiar with the evidence. Was information about accurate match contained in those above mentioned affidavits? Did those who were present during the strip search knew how Jordan's drawing looked? Did Maureen Orth get this information directly from Tom Sneddon who I believe saw both the drawing and MJ's private parts?
The boy got "in excess of $25 million," according to sources close to the family, and his parents were also paid off in the millions.
Those sources close to the family were not very correct, Jordan got only little bit more than 15 million.
People close to the investigation say that Jackson's lawyers kept putting off any depositions, and agreed to settle the night before Jackson was to have been put under oath.
Once again: who are those people?
In answering a civil case in which five former bodyguards accused Jackson of firing them because "they knew too much," Jackson did invoke the Fifth Amendment on the subject of alleged child molestation. The suit, dismissed since the PrimeTime Live interview, was not mentioned by Sawyer.
There were plenty of people who used to sue MJ for different reasons - did Sawer had to mention everybody?.. (And I think it is believed to be more appropriate to kill those who "know too much", not to fire them).
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 "at play," and according to one, that book "is often found in the home of pedophiles."
Lewd?.. It depends on viewer's opinion. As far as I remember there were one or two books seized from Neverland which really contain pictures of undressed or scantily dressed kids. Perhaps police really often finds those books in the home of pedophiles, though those books are not pornographic.
Law-enforcement sources, however, confirm that there is another boy who has a lawyer and is currently negotiating a settlement with Jackson. Of the boys mentioned in the district attorneys' press release who accused Jackson of sexual misconduct and who are unwilling to testify, Sneddon says, "The status regarding these two is basically the same."
At one point Sawyer said, "None of the employees who claimed to have seen questionable things had a story that could be confirmed by a child." Again, Sawyer is contradicted by law-enforcement sources. Two years ago, Jackson's personal maid, Blanca Francia, told police, the Los Angeles Times, and the tabloid TV show Hard Copy that she had seen Jackson a number of times in the nude with young boys and found a picture of an apparently nude boy in Jackson's room. Under oath she also said she found Jackson in bed with several boys, and a young boy with him in the same sleeping bag. She discovered $300 in the boy's pocket (which he had admitted Jackson had given to him).
Actually those multiple boys was Blanca Francia's son.
The boy himself, according to sources close to the case, was considering going into the witness-protection program—such was his fear of the retribution he would suffer by publicly alleging that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
Who are these sources close to the case?
The witness-protection-program idea fell through, however, when neither state nor federal authorities offered it
Hm, why?
While Jackson has gone on to marry and become the stepfather of Elvis Presley's grandchildren, Jackson's close involvement with the boy ultimately ripped the boy's floundering family apart. After the settlement, the second marriages of both his parents ended in divorce. The boy no longer sees or speaks to his mother, whom he blames for allowing Jackson to become so intimate with him. He has not seen his eight-year-old sister in two years, or his stepfather, who essentially raised him. Now 15, the boy lives with his stepmother. He is not in therapy. He continues to have a relationship with his father, who was accused by Jackson's side of extortion but whom authorities declined to prosecute, saying there was not enough evidence—another fact not mentioned by Diane Sawyer. The boy's father and stepfather, once friends, are now suing each other.
Source???
Liz Smith has reported that Jackson wanted Princess Diana to be with him on the Sawyer interview, to commiserate about the sufferings imposed by tabloid coverage, and that he queried the British Embassy in Washington about being knighted by the Queen for "his work with little children." According to an observer, he actually was working behind the scenes to see if the Queen would knight him right there on PrimeTime Live.
Who is Liz Smith and where did she get her information from?
ABC News's credibility was seriously undermined when it was revealed that the network had electronically altered a pre-taped segment of Jackson because he didn't care for the way the lighting cast lines on his face.
What some lines on a face have to do with credibility?
Executives at CBS and NBC said that Jackson's handlers had clearly been looking for a "package." (In the interest of full disclosure, my husband, Tim Russert, is Washington-bureau chief of NBC News, with no responsibility for prime-time programming.) A producer from one network told me, "It's difficult to pretend there was no quid pro quo in the ABC deal. Jackson's people approached a bunch of us. Basically they said, 'Come back to us with a proposition, and not just what you can do with your news division—that is not enough.'"
I guess I understood! This article is an impact from Maureen Orth to ABC! (Or to Diane Sawyer personally. Or both.) Journalists' undercarpet fights? Boring, sorry.
In addition, Sawyer had "get-togethers" with Jackson and Presley before the expensively produced interview, which is not her usual practice.
Here Maureen Orth tries to emphasize that Sawyer was not unbiased towards MJ.
Oh yes, this interview was a deal - so what?.. Maureen Orth was not born yesterday (I suspect), some of her readers were not born yesterday as well.
And contrary to news-show procedures, the air-conditioning remained on loud while Sawyer interviewed Jackson, causing a strange background noise. The cool air was necessary, veteran soundmen say, because the lights on Jackson were so hot that his thick pancake makeup and lipstick would have melted otherwise, and his false eyelashes would have come off.
Looool, so normally people who are interviewed have to sweat like marathon runners under heating sun?.. Great practice!
"I have no idea what the purpose of her show is," District Attorney Sneddon wondered, somewhat taken aback after having spent three hours on a Saturday afternoon helping to prime one of Sawyer's producers. "Is it the Evening News or Hard Copy?" Good question. Whatever it was, 60 million Americans and untold millions around the world got something less than the truth.
What was the purpose of the article? To butt ABC and Diane Sawyer or to throw a stone at MJ? Or both? Well, I believe honorarium was a serious factor too!
21 Nov 2010
Philosophy
There is one main rule for investigation of everything connected to MJ - every little piece of information should be confirmed by at least two (well, two - is a really very small number here though) independent sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)