You were really an outstanding person...
You knew how to rock!
27 Jun 2018
5 Dec 2015
Photo of Michael Jackson by Greg Gorman
I can't nail it, but there is something about this photo...
(Taken here: http://www.hatjecantz.de/fotoblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Installation-view_Greg-Gorman_Color-Works_Helmut-Newton-Foundation_%C2%A9NadineBarth.jpg)
Something that even made me put it here!..
Something that even made me put it here!..
25 Jun 2014
25 of June, 2014
5 years without Michael Jackson...
This world still exist, though it misses something...
This world still exist, though it misses something...
4 Jul 2013
Rant
This blog was supposed to be for just rant purposes at first - so why not to return to origins?
I don't have too much to say, I just have several subjects on my mind.
Is it normal to keep people in hospital for so long after suicidal attempts? Does Paris really needs so much brainwashing, I mean therapy?.. What is Debbie Rowe's role in all this drama?
Just from my point of view Paris actually really needs just to grow very thick skin and a good portion of cynicism. Oh, and to have her caring relatives at a good distance. BTW what was wrong with allowing her to go to Marilyn Manson show? I guess the family could afford it and nothing would happen to Paris at the concert with a bunch of bodyguards. Besides just a couple of days before the suicidal attempt Prince attended a concert with his girlfriend. So?..
Meanwhile Prince gave a testimony at court. It's really interesting that he saw Randy Philips at the house talking to Conrad Murray.
Isn't it too much of coincidence that Wade Robson came out with his claims (what is his soft spot I wonder?..) and tabloids dug out a 20-year old story about a couple who worked at Neverland?..
So far Katherine Jackson vs. AEG trial cleared to me why MJ behaved oddly before his passing - most probably adverse effects of propofol in form of lack of normal sleep.
And that good looking doctor with unpronounceable last name implanted an anti-drug patch in Michael's abdomen - I think it was removed later, that's why Michael had a scar there.
I don't have too much to say, I just have several subjects on my mind.
Is it normal to keep people in hospital for so long after suicidal attempts? Does Paris really needs so much brainwashing, I mean therapy?.. What is Debbie Rowe's role in all this drama?
Just from my point of view Paris actually really needs just to grow very thick skin and a good portion of cynicism. Oh, and to have her caring relatives at a good distance. BTW what was wrong with allowing her to go to Marilyn Manson show? I guess the family could afford it and nothing would happen to Paris at the concert with a bunch of bodyguards. Besides just a couple of days before the suicidal attempt Prince attended a concert with his girlfriend. So?..
Meanwhile Prince gave a testimony at court. It's really interesting that he saw Randy Philips at the house talking to Conrad Murray.
Isn't it too much of coincidence that Wade Robson came out with his claims (what is his soft spot I wonder?..) and tabloids dug out a 20-year old story about a couple who worked at Neverland?..
So far Katherine Jackson vs. AEG trial cleared to me why MJ behaved oddly before his passing - most probably adverse effects of propofol in form of lack of normal sleep.
And that good looking doctor with unpronounceable last name implanted an anti-drug patch in Michael's abdomen - I think it was removed later, that's why Michael had a scar there.
20 Jun 2013
Scott Thorson On Michael Jackson: True Or False?
What a story is unfolding before our eyes!..
HBO channel recently released a movie "Behind the Candelabra" about relationships between famous American pianist and showman Liberace and his much younger lover Scott Thorson with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon. This movie was a real success, I managed to watch it and I liked it too - very funny and sincere story. The film is based on a book written in the end of 80-s by Scott Thorson himself. As readers of my blog probably know Thorson also claimed that he had a fling with Michael Jackson: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.ru/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html, http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.ru/2012/05/fans-on-scott-thorson-and-myths-about.html
The real Scott Thorson has an interesting life - besides the fact that he was a boy-toy of the famous showman (and there is a possibility that not of only one famous showman), he was also a drug-addict, a witness in a murder case, he was shot 5 times, but survived, then he was in jail himself in 2008, released, diagnosed with colon cancer in 2012, then accused of using a credit card that didn't belong to him, then bailed out by a brothel owner after the HBO movie and due to be back in jail on 3-rd of July.
As someone wrote on IMDB - he is a guy to whom things happen. (Probably if my blog wasn't solely about Michael Jackson I would go into detail trying to find more information about Scott).
What does temporary free Scott Thorson is doing now?
He lives now at Bunny Ranch - it's a brothel, whose owner Dennis Hof bailed him out. I suspect that Hof just decided that it would be great promotion for his establishment - even I write about him now! LOL! Scott has a HUGE payday now and he is really busy giving tons of interviews left and right to any mass media that is willing to give him some time and space. Just several links to Scott's interviews below (I suspect it's very far from a full list though):
The View: http://watchabc.go.com/the-view/SH559080/VDKA0_5y12fwc6/the-view-614
Opie & Anthony Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbQxEf5n96M
Lamont and Tonelli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QX8okAlnaY
The Artie Lange Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQNOFa5_efw&%20sns=tw
Howard Stern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1MlPbfH1CY
In every interview Thorson is talking about his relationship with Liberace and with Michael Jackson. Although he told us probably more than the world had to know (including what types of sex he had with both Lee and Michael and how penises of both looked like) there are still questions, because there are inconsistencies regarding his relationship with Michael, especially if we keep in mind Scott's 2004 interview to National Enquirer and 2002 interview to Larry King.
I have to say that all those interviewers in the above videos SUCK. They talk too much, they simply don't listen to the interviewee and at the same time they don't ask questions to make the picture clear and logical. (Well, maybe I'm too strict: they are not investigators or prosecutors after all, LOL!)
If I were in their shoes I would ask Scott the following things about Michael:
He used to be blond after all!)
HBO channel recently released a movie "Behind the Candelabra" about relationships between famous American pianist and showman Liberace and his much younger lover Scott Thorson with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon. This movie was a real success, I managed to watch it and I liked it too - very funny and sincere story. The film is based on a book written in the end of 80-s by Scott Thorson himself. As readers of my blog probably know Thorson also claimed that he had a fling with Michael Jackson: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.ru/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html, http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.ru/2012/05/fans-on-scott-thorson-and-myths-about.html
The real Scott Thorson has an interesting life - besides the fact that he was a boy-toy of the famous showman (and there is a possibility that not of only one famous showman), he was also a drug-addict, a witness in a murder case, he was shot 5 times, but survived, then he was in jail himself in 2008, released, diagnosed with colon cancer in 2012, then accused of using a credit card that didn't belong to him, then bailed out by a brothel owner after the HBO movie and due to be back in jail on 3-rd of July.
As someone wrote on IMDB - he is a guy to whom things happen. (Probably if my blog wasn't solely about Michael Jackson I would go into detail trying to find more information about Scott).
What does temporary free Scott Thorson is doing now?
He lives now at Bunny Ranch - it's a brothel, whose owner Dennis Hof bailed him out. I suspect that Hof just decided that it would be great promotion for his establishment - even I write about him now! LOL! Scott has a HUGE payday now and he is really busy giving tons of interviews left and right to any mass media that is willing to give him some time and space. Just several links to Scott's interviews below (I suspect it's very far from a full list though):
The View: http://watchabc.go.com/the-view/SH559080/VDKA0_5y12fwc6/the-view-614
Opie & Anthony Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbQxEf5n96M
Lamont and Tonelli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QX8okAlnaY
The Artie Lange Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQNOFa5_efw&%20sns=tw
Howard Stern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1MlPbfH1CY
In every interview Thorson is talking about his relationship with Liberace and with Michael Jackson. Although he told us probably more than the world had to know (including what types of sex he had with both Lee and Michael and how penises of both looked like) there are still questions, because there are inconsistencies regarding his relationship with Michael, especially if we keep in mind Scott's 2004 interview to National Enquirer and 2002 interview to Larry King.
I have to say that all those interviewers in the above videos SUCK. They talk too much, they simply don't listen to the interviewee and at the same time they don't ask questions to make the picture clear and logical. (Well, maybe I'm too strict: they are not investigators or prosecutors after all, LOL!)
If I were in their shoes I would ask Scott the following things about Michael:
- Was Scott on drugs during their relationship? (Does he remember everything correctly?)
- What did he do for living at the time?
- What did Michael think about Scott's palimony suit against Liberace?
- Did Michael give him presents? (What were those presents?)
- Where did they have encounters? How often?
- Why did Scott tell National Enquirer in 2004 that they split because MJ had child porn (or did he really say that?) and why he tells a different story now?
- Was he Michael's "first"?
- Did he ever meet Michael after their split?
- Who was aware about their relationship?
6 Jun 2013
They say...
...daughter of Michael Jackson tried to commit suicide after leaving a twit with a verse from the Beatles song because she was not allowed to go to Marilyn Manson concert ?..
Paris, do you remember: you can't please everyone, but you can piss everyone?..
Sometimes life makes us live only from bitchiness.
But it'll pass too.
Paris, do you remember: you can't please everyone, but you can piss everyone?..
Sometimes life makes us live only from bitchiness.
But it'll pass too.
8 May 2013
Errr... Wade Robson?..
Wade Robson, a choreographer (they say a famous one) and a guy, who was a witness in 2005 sexual molestation trial, filed a creditor claim against MJ's estate claiming that Michael molested him. (In 2005 Robson denied that he ever was molested). Read TMZ for the details.
Is it even possible to sue a dead person for sexual molestation in US?..
Very strange claims, especially taking into consideration that there is a trial now going on where Katherine Jackson is trying to get a huge sum of money from concert promoter AEG...
Is it even possible to sue a dead person for sexual molestation in US?..
Very strange claims, especially taking into consideration that there is a trial now going on where Katherine Jackson is trying to get a huge sum of money from concert promoter AEG...
17 Apr 2013
Mass Media: Tips and Tricks
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.
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.
17 Jan 2013
Dear Arnie, PLEASE Stop The Fuckery!
You're not the father of Prince Jackson and I'm frightened for your patients - they need a doctor with better sight (and memory).
UPDATE:
Why do I have problems believing the guy?..
25 Nov 2012
Leave Them Alone
Some fans of Michael Jackson came to a new level of madness. I'm not surprised anymore by their hatred towards almost anybody who had a chance to meet MJ, to work with him, to be friends with him (or even to marry him!) and to dare to say something publicly about him, I'm not surprised anymore when fans discuss ways to guess the size of MJ's penis (this information for sure would change their life forever!), I'm even not too shocked when fans discuss upbringing of Michael's children (although they definitely need to give birth to their own kids and to take care about them instead). But now some fans are bitching about Prince and Paris not tweeting about Bad 25 documentary!..
Some quotes:
"And sorry I think this is exactly the time for them to tweet if they are going to say something. They are the keeper of their fathers empire and image now. Spike Lee has asked them in the past if they had seen it and their opinon. The project was done out of love and respect and look at the reaction it has made to so many. There are millions of dollars that will pour in to their bank account eventually and this will help it along. A small tweet of thanks and appreciation to Spike and an acknowledgement of the airing would have been really cool. It just seems like the priorities are a bit backwards there sometime....its real easy to go play Hollywood and promote Mr Pink but a simple tweet about a tribute to your Dad on Thanksgiving and its crickets. Hmmmm sad"
"If Paris can tweet 'happy birthday' to that loser Miley Cyrus than she can tweet about her father's legacy. Or at the very least thank Spike Lee publicly for what he has done for her father's legacy after he so graciously tweeted her!
Pathetic and disappointing if you ask me.
And be sure, just like the rest of her family (Latoya, Jergreasy and so on)... when it comes time to promote herself, she will happily talk about her dad then. (Oprah and Ellen anyone??!!)."
"Oh and it is damn sure is my business cause I choose to spend my hard earned cash on estate backed projects, it would benice to see, Oh hell the people who benefit from those hard earned dollars support said project. It wont be long and there is not going to be many projects to support and in light of the horrible few weeks of Randy Sullivan running around spreading lies on television, A tweet yes A single tweet to support this documentary would have been a good PR move for them and the estate she or her brother benefits from and represents. Oh and Blanket is a child, Prince and Paris are teenagers who do teenage things...some of which people consider mature. Like dating, driving and red carpets etc..."
So now Paris and Prince are obliged to do something to please their dad's fans?.. (Thanks God at least Blanket doesn't have a twitter account - it can be taken as an excuse. Um... Probably...)
Is it something wrong with me because I think that Michael's children are NOT obliged to do what their dad's fans want them to do?.. They are free people, they can do whatever they want to do and I'm afraid they'll survive if a stupid girl will decide not to spend her hard earned dollars for something connected with their dad's name.
I hope Prince, Paris and Blanket will realize it too.
Some quotes:
"And sorry I think this is exactly the time for them to tweet if they are going to say something. They are the keeper of their fathers empire and image now. Spike Lee has asked them in the past if they had seen it and their opinon. The project was done out of love and respect and look at the reaction it has made to so many. There are millions of dollars that will pour in to their bank account eventually and this will help it along. A small tweet of thanks and appreciation to Spike and an acknowledgement of the airing would have been really cool. It just seems like the priorities are a bit backwards there sometime....its real easy to go play Hollywood and promote Mr Pink but a simple tweet about a tribute to your Dad on Thanksgiving and its crickets. Hmmmm sad"
"If Paris can tweet 'happy birthday' to that loser Miley Cyrus than she can tweet about her father's legacy. Or at the very least thank Spike Lee publicly for what he has done for her father's legacy after he so graciously tweeted her!
Pathetic and disappointing if you ask me.
And be sure, just like the rest of her family (Latoya, Jergreasy and so on)... when it comes time to promote herself, she will happily talk about her dad then. (Oprah and Ellen anyone??!!)."
"Oh and it is damn sure is my business cause I choose to spend my hard earned cash on estate backed projects, it would benice to see, Oh hell the people who benefit from those hard earned dollars support said project. It wont be long and there is not going to be many projects to support and in light of the horrible few weeks of Randy Sullivan running around spreading lies on television, A tweet yes A single tweet to support this documentary would have been a good PR move for them and the estate she or her brother benefits from and represents. Oh and Blanket is a child, Prince and Paris are teenagers who do teenage things...some of which people consider mature. Like dating, driving and red carpets etc..."
So now Paris and Prince are obliged to do something to please their dad's fans?.. (Thanks God at least Blanket doesn't have a twitter account - it can be taken as an excuse. Um... Probably...)
Is it something wrong with me because I think that Michael's children are NOT obliged to do what their dad's fans want them to do?.. They are free people, they can do whatever they want to do and I'm afraid they'll survive if a stupid girl will decide not to spend her hard earned dollars for something connected with their dad's name.
I hope Prince, Paris and Blanket will realize it too.
21 Sept 2012
Michael Jackson Sex Tape?
Surfing through the net yesterday I found something interesting (possibly juicy) and completely overlooked yet: http://4umf.com/micheal-jackson-sex-videochris-brown-gay-pics/
I'll quote the part that is closely connected with the subject of my blog:
"the owner of these alleged Chris Brown gay pics says he also has a Micheal Jackson sex video. Plus he said that Micheal Jackson had signed him to work with him but the relationship changed into a personal one. He claims he has a 30-minute video of him and Micheal Jackson making out which leads to a big sexcapade with him and the King of Pop".
Yeah, sex tape!
This owner is a guy called Trend Rovheir (also known as Tie'Lonzo Rovheir): http://www.prlog.org/11966447-tielonzo-rovheir-emerges-from-darkside-of-lust-and-hiphop.html
I have no idea where did this young man emerge from or whether anybody ever heard about him, but it seems like he is really serious about writing a book, at least judging by his twitter: https://twitter.com/TieLonzoRovheir
This is what he wrote on Michael's birthday: https://twitter.com/TieLonzoRovheir/status/240976750996230144
Does the guy really has this sex tape or is it his vivid imagination?..
He needs to be aware of Michael's fans with bazookas! Besides I'm sure even in case the tape does exist and even in case there is Michael on it doing something sexual with another man fans will claim that it's a look-alike!
I'll quote the part that is closely connected with the subject of my blog:
"the owner of these alleged Chris Brown gay pics says he also has a Micheal Jackson sex video. Plus he said that Micheal Jackson had signed him to work with him but the relationship changed into a personal one. He claims he has a 30-minute video of him and Micheal Jackson making out which leads to a big sexcapade with him and the King of Pop".
Yeah, sex tape!
This owner is a guy called Trend Rovheir (also known as Tie'Lonzo Rovheir): http://www.prlog.org/11966447-tielonzo-rovheir-emerges-from-darkside-of-lust-and-hiphop.html
I have no idea where did this young man emerge from or whether anybody ever heard about him, but it seems like he is really serious about writing a book, at least judging by his twitter: https://twitter.com/TieLonzoRovheir
This is what he wrote on Michael's birthday: https://twitter.com/TieLonzoRovheir/status/240976750996230144
Does the guy really has this sex tape or is it his vivid imagination?..
He needs to be aware of Michael's fans with bazookas! Besides I'm sure even in case the tape does exist and even in case there is Michael on it doing something sexual with another man fans will claim that it's a look-alike!
26 Jul 2012
The Jackson Family Wars. Part Multiple
Katherine Jackson is alive and finally home... But her grandchildren are on the warpath. These precocious kids are fighting with a weapon that their relatives have no idea how to handle - truth.
Prince Jackson went on Twitter to say:
I would first like to start off this tweet by thanking the fans that have always stood by me and my family, my dad really appreciated your support and I still treasure it to this day. As I am sure everyone is well aware of the events that have been going on. I have been holding off on backing up my sister and her tweets avidly because I was waiting for the time to reveal my side. As long as I can remember my dad had repeatedly warned me of certain people and their ways. Although I am happy my grandma was returned, after speaking with her I realized how misguided and how badly she was lied to. I’m really angry and hurt. The following image is of a group chat I had started to several family members. This group text message I had started was replied to but they didn’t know that I could see the responses. For this whole time, they denied us contact to our grandmother. “If you continue with your lies I will continue with the truth”
-Michael Jackson Jr.
and to post the picture:
It was on 23 of July...
Prince, baby, where did you learn to be soo official?!. LOL!
On a serious note: WHY it was THAT important not to let Prince and Paris to talk to their grandmother? What they could tell each other that was so dangerous? In case she wasn't held against her will in that Arizona spa. Probably I'm not too bright but I don't get it.
Update. Someone deleted Prince's tweets!
I don't like it. At all.
This strange tweet appeared first, than Prince's tweets were deleted - this one including.
Prince Jackson went on Twitter to say:
I would first like to start off this tweet by thanking the fans that have always stood by me and my family, my dad really appreciated your support and I still treasure it to this day. As I am sure everyone is well aware of the events that have been going on. I have been holding off on backing up my sister and her tweets avidly because I was waiting for the time to reveal my side. As long as I can remember my dad had repeatedly warned me of certain people and their ways. Although I am happy my grandma was returned, after speaking with her I realized how misguided and how badly she was lied to. I’m really angry and hurt. The following image is of a group chat I had started to several family members. This group text message I had started was replied to but they didn’t know that I could see the responses. For this whole time, they denied us contact to our grandmother. “If you continue with your lies I will continue with the truth”
-Michael Jackson Jr.
and to post the picture:
Prince, baby, where did you learn to be soo official?!. LOL!
On a serious note: WHY it was THAT important not to let Prince and Paris to talk to their grandmother? What they could tell each other that was so dangerous? In case she wasn't held against her will in that Arizona spa. Probably I'm not too bright but I don't get it.
Update. Someone deleted Prince's tweets!
I don't like it. At all.
This strange tweet appeared first, than Prince's tweets were deleted - this one including.
Update 1. Kids got up, tweets were restored, unknown hacker stays unknown yet.
Update 2. Very funny outcome of all the drama: http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2012/07/roland-s-martin-exclusive-janet-jackson-others-family-members-barred-from-moms-california-home/ Some of Katherine's children are not allowed to visit their mom at home. That's probably not bad for her own safety.
25 Jul 2012
WHERE IS KATHERINE JACKSON?
It was weird yesterday, today it starts to look frightening.
The clan got divided: Marlon, Jackie and Tito (who decided to withdraw his signature from the letter to MJ's estate executors) have no idea what is going on with their mother, Randy claims that Katherine is with Rebbie and "relaxing". Also Randy told Al Sharpton that he and Janet Jackson went to the Calabasas mansion to let Paris and Prince know that they can visit with or talk to their grandma at any time. While TMZ issued video of that warm family meeting where someone looking like Janet Jackson is trying to take away something looking like a mobile phone from someone looking like Paris Jackson. There was also someone's bald head looking like Randy Jackson's bald head in the video. (TMZ even wrote that there was exchange of punches between Janet and Paris, but Paris denied it on twitter). Randy said that he and his siblings were denied access to the kids, here is the quote: When we got to the home, we were kind of denied access to our home by security and trench and that never happened.
Err... Really?..
I haven't heard yet from LaToya and Joseph Jackson. They rarely miss a chance to take part in family showdowns, so I'm extremely surprised!
So far the situation doesn't look good...
Ifwe are still in our right mind and we don't consider Prince, Paris and Blanket as co-conspirators conspiring to drive all their relatives to early grave than I can't imagine why Katherine didn't dial Paris phone number and say "Hi". As the TMZ video shows at least Paris keeps her mobile phone. I believe Katherine must know her granddaughter's number. Why she doesn't call?.. Why Randy or Janet couldn't place a call to Rebbie several days ago to say: "Tell mom to call Paris and calm her down!" I can think of two possible reasons - and I don't like both. First reason: Katherine is physically unable to talk. Second reason: Katherine is hold hostage and she refuses to do what her kids try to make he to do. Though I can think of a third reason: Jermaine, Randy, Janet and Rebbie themselves have no idea where is their mother. Have you ever heard about those elderly people who leave their homes and get lost?..
The clan got divided: Marlon, Jackie and Tito (who decided to withdraw his signature from the letter to MJ's estate executors) have no idea what is going on with their mother, Randy claims that Katherine is with Rebbie and "relaxing". Also Randy told Al Sharpton that he and Janet Jackson went to the Calabasas mansion to let Paris and Prince know that they can visit with or talk to their grandma at any time. While TMZ issued video of that warm family meeting where someone looking like Janet Jackson is trying to take away something looking like a mobile phone from someone looking like Paris Jackson. There was also someone's bald head looking like Randy Jackson's bald head in the video. (TMZ even wrote that there was exchange of punches between Janet and Paris, but Paris denied it on twitter). Randy said that he and his siblings were denied access to the kids, here is the quote: When we got to the home, we were kind of denied access to our home by security and trench and that never happened.
Err... Really?..
I haven't heard yet from LaToya and Joseph Jackson. They rarely miss a chance to take part in family showdowns, so I'm extremely surprised!
So far the situation doesn't look good...
If
24 Jul 2012
Katherine Jackson Is Still Missing
The Jacksons are able to give headache even to me, a complete stranger.
I turned on my computer today only to find out that the family drama continues!
This what TMZ reports: http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/katherine-jackson-michael-jackson-family-lawyers-ambushed/
MJ's kids are still unable to talk to their grandmother, and Paris Jackson tweets this:
My congratulations go to her aunts and uncles: they receive first prise of the fools contest! They managed to alienate Michael's kids, Michael's fans and (I wouldn't be surprised) their own mom (I hope she is ok...), police is already involved! I think they need to make a couple of arrests or smth.
Paris, Prince and Blanket need to run away from their beloved family as soon and as fast as they can!
I turned on my computer today only to find out that the family drama continues!
This what TMZ reports: http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/katherine-jackson-michael-jackson-family-lawyers-ambushed/
MJ's kids are still unable to talk to their grandmother, and Paris Jackson tweets this:
Paris, Prince and Blanket need to run away from their beloved family as soon and as fast as they can!
22 Jul 2012
Katherine Jackson Is Missing
And the fuckery continues...
This was first: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/22/showbiz/michael-jackson-mom-missing-person/index.html
Now Paris Jackson confirms that something is going on with Katherine Jackson:
It must be late at night in California...
WTF is going on???
Update. ABC reported this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/07/questions-raised-over-whereabouts-of-michael-jacksons-mother/
I'll quote the most interesting part:
I think Paris is talking about the same doctor in her tweet:
This doctor is probably Allan Metzger.
This looks like a real detective novel now...
Update 2. Yesterday Jermaine Jackson issued a statement regarding whereabouts of his mother Katherine through his twitter account:
Let me put to bed today's nonsense: as I made clear some days ago, Mother is safe and well in Arizona with her daughter and our sister, Rebbie, resting up on doctor's advice, so it is beyond me how she can be reported "missing"
This incredulous claim was made for reasons best known to the adult/s who filed it but it seems no accident that it comes after we, the sons and daughters, put in place care-taking for our own mother, taking her to Arizona in line with doctor's advice following a check-up.
Furthermore, it dismays me that such an alarmist "missing person" report has caused unnecessary anxiety among Michael's children who will understandably react to what they misunderstand, hear or are told.
No-one is being "blocked" from speaking with Mother. She is merely an
82-year-old woman following doctor's orders to rest-up and de-stress, away from
phones and computers. Everyone has been well aware of this within the family,
but I would like to reiterate my reassurance to the outside world that Mother is
fine. In the meantime, thank you for all your thoughts and concerns.
Well...
So, on 15 of July Katherine Jackson had intention to go to New Mexico to watch her sons perform. Prior to her departure a doctor visited her and instructed her not to drive, but to fly to the place of destination. This doctor (Allan Metzger) was not sent by Katherine's longtime physician - it turned out. Here we have a lot of questions: why did he visit Katherine? Who did really send him? What was his goal? Why it was important that Katherine fly rather then drive? Who was with Katherine when she left (besides Rebbie Jackson)?
On 18 of July Michael's siblings issued a letter towards John Branca and John McClain, executors of MJ's estate. It was mentioned in the letter that Katherine suffered a mini-stroke. It was not specified though when exactly Katherine had mini-stroke. Mini-stroke is still a stroke, it's a serious thing, and Katherine had to be hospitalised. But I don't remember reports about her being in hospital. Of course I don' follow every step of the Jacksons, also maybe they were able to conceal the fact from paparazzi...
When people started to ask Paris Jackson on twitter about her grandmother's health Paris asked her uncle Randy not to spread lies, though later she deleted her twit and wrote quite an ornate apology.
I wonder whether Paris contacted either Katherine directly or her aunt Rebbie to check her granny's health?
According to Sandra Ribera Paris and her siblings were unable to talk to Katherine for a week (it means starting from July 15). Were kids able to talk at least to their aunt Rebbie? Also Katherine didn't attend her sons' concert according to the same report.
Finally Katherine's assistant and nephew Trent Jackson filed the report with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office. Paris confirmed through twitter that her grandmother is missing. Before that, on 21 of July Jermaine tweeted that his mother is ok and resting in Arizona on the orders of a doctor. Yesterday he issued his twitter statement... Who is the doctor who ordered Katherine to rest in Arizona? Why did she have to go to Arizona? In case she went to Arizona to watch the show why it was necessary to contact this doctor and why she didn't watch the show? Why Katherine didn't contact her grandchildren (who she is supposed to take care about because she is their legal guardian) or at least her assistant? Why Trent Jackson and Sandra Ribera were concerned to the point they called police? Did Katherine talk on the phone to her grandchildren finally?
Update 3. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/07/katherine-jackson-not-missing-resting-in-arizona/
the missing person’s report was “created by the very person and persons we are trying to protect our mother from.”
It turned out Trent Jackson and Sandra Ribera are villainous conspirators!..
Um, I hope Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson are not in the list of conspirators though!
Update 4.
This was first: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/22/showbiz/michael-jackson-mom-missing-person/index.html
Now Paris Jackson confirms that something is going on with Katherine Jackson:
WTF is going on???
Update. ABC reported this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/07/questions-raised-over-whereabouts-of-michael-jacksons-mother/
I'll quote the most interesting part:
Katherine Jackson’s attorney, Sandra Ribera, released a statement saying that Jackson left her home with plans of attending her sons’ concerts, but did not end up going to any of the performances.
“Prior to her departure, a doctor was brought to her home and represented that he had been sent from the office of her longtime physician. Based on this representation, Mrs. Jackson agreed to meet with the doctor who subsequently ordered her to fly rather than drive to her sons’ concerts. Mrs. Jackson followed what she believed to be her doctor’s instructions,” the statement said. “Moreover, Katherine Jackson’s longtime physician recently confirmed that his office did not send a doctor to Mrs. Jackson’s home last weekend before she left on her trip. It has further been discovered that the doctor that Katherine Jackson last saw has been publicly reprimanded by the California Medical Board for fraudulent activities and has ties to Dr. Conrad Murray.”
I think Paris is talking about the same doctor in her tweet:
This looks like a real detective novel now...
Update 2. Yesterday Jermaine Jackson issued a statement regarding whereabouts of his mother Katherine through his twitter account:
Let me put to bed today's nonsense: as I made clear some days ago, Mother is safe and well in Arizona with her daughter and our sister, Rebbie, resting up on doctor's advice, so it is beyond me how she can be reported "missing"
This incredulous claim was made for reasons best known to the adult/s who filed it but it seems no accident that it comes after we, the sons and daughters, put in place care-taking for our own mother, taking her to Arizona in line with doctor's advice following a check-up.
Furthermore, it dismays me that such an alarmist "missing person" report has caused unnecessary anxiety among Michael's children who will understandably react to what they misunderstand, hear or are told.
No-one is being "blocked" from speaking with Mother. She is merely an
82-year-old woman following doctor's orders to rest-up and de-stress, away from
phones and computers. Everyone has been well aware of this within the family,
but I would like to reiterate my reassurance to the outside world that Mother is
fine. In the meantime, thank you for all your thoughts and concerns.
Well...
So, on 15 of July Katherine Jackson had intention to go to New Mexico to watch her sons perform. Prior to her departure a doctor visited her and instructed her not to drive, but to fly to the place of destination. This doctor (Allan Metzger) was not sent by Katherine's longtime physician - it turned out. Here we have a lot of questions: why did he visit Katherine? Who did really send him? What was his goal? Why it was important that Katherine fly rather then drive? Who was with Katherine when she left (besides Rebbie Jackson)?
On 18 of July Michael's siblings issued a letter towards John Branca and John McClain, executors of MJ's estate. It was mentioned in the letter that Katherine suffered a mini-stroke. It was not specified though when exactly Katherine had mini-stroke. Mini-stroke is still a stroke, it's a serious thing, and Katherine had to be hospitalised. But I don't remember reports about her being in hospital. Of course I don' follow every step of the Jacksons, also maybe they were able to conceal the fact from paparazzi...
When people started to ask Paris Jackson on twitter about her grandmother's health Paris asked her uncle Randy not to spread lies, though later she deleted her twit and wrote quite an ornate apology.
I wonder whether Paris contacted either Katherine directly or her aunt Rebbie to check her granny's health?
According to Sandra Ribera Paris and her siblings were unable to talk to Katherine for a week (it means starting from July 15). Were kids able to talk at least to their aunt Rebbie? Also Katherine didn't attend her sons' concert according to the same report.
Finally Katherine's assistant and nephew Trent Jackson filed the report with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office. Paris confirmed through twitter that her grandmother is missing. Before that, on 21 of July Jermaine tweeted that his mother is ok and resting in Arizona on the orders of a doctor. Yesterday he issued his twitter statement... Who is the doctor who ordered Katherine to rest in Arizona? Why did she have to go to Arizona? In case she went to Arizona to watch the show why it was necessary to contact this doctor and why she didn't watch the show? Why Katherine didn't contact her grandchildren (who she is supposed to take care about because she is their legal guardian) or at least her assistant? Why Trent Jackson and Sandra Ribera were concerned to the point they called police? Did Katherine talk on the phone to her grandchildren finally?
Update 3. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/07/katherine-jackson-not-missing-resting-in-arizona/
the missing person’s report was “created by the very person and persons we are trying to protect our mother from.”
It turned out Trent Jackson and Sandra Ribera are villainous conspirators!..
Um, I hope Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson are not in the list of conspirators though!
Update 4.
18 Jul 2012
And The Fuckery Begins!
Michael's siblings (namely Janet, Rebbie, Tito, Randy and Jermaine) wrote a letter to executors of MJ's will John Branca and John McClain! Please read it yourself: http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/jackson-family-letter-calling-for-executors-of-michael-jacksons-estate-to-resign-immediately/
So, what would be next?.. Litigations?
The saddest thing is that I'm not sure that anyone involved really has Michael's kids best interest in their heart.
Update: Oh my, Paris got involved in family showdowns!..
Too many relatives - too many problems...
I admire Paris - she doesn't hesitate to tell people where to go, I was softer at 14 (errr... maybe. I don't remember. LOL!)
So, what would be next?.. Litigations?
The saddest thing is that I'm not sure that anyone involved really has Michael's kids best interest in their heart.
Update: Oh my, Paris got involved in family showdowns!..
I admire Paris - she doesn't hesitate to tell people where to go, I was softer at 14 (errr... maybe. I don't remember. LOL!)
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.
2 May 2012
More About Scott Thorson And Michael Jackson
My yesterday short post became surprisingly popular, so I decided to make a slightly longer post about Scott Thorson. For those who doesn't know - Scott is a guy who used to be boyfriend/plaything of a pianist and entertainer Liberace, very popular back in the day in US. You can find plenty of information about their liaison in the web. Scott Thorson even wrote a book about Liberace (interesting reading I believe). In 2004 National Enquirer posted an article where Scott Thorson alleged that he also had a fling with Michael Jackson. Unfortunately I can't find the full article online anymore, but those interested can read this: http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biot1/thorson01.html.
Scott seems to be a very intersting person who always loved to stick his nose (and other parts of his body) into other people's affairs, suspicious substances, etc.
Nowadays Steven Soderbergh is going to make a movie about Liberace and Scott based on Scott's book Behind the Candelabra (with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon). That's why perhaps Entertainment Tonight invited Thorson for an interview. In this interview Thorson admitted (quite evasively) that his relationship with Michael Jackson crossed the boundaries of friendship.
One may believe or disbelieve the man... I just would like to share a link with my readers: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/93764-depression-2.0-sunday-in-kerouac-alley
Just more information for reflection.
Scott seems to be a very intersting person who always loved to stick his nose (and other parts of his body) into other people's affairs, suspicious substances, etc.
Nowadays Steven Soderbergh is going to make a movie about Liberace and Scott based on Scott's book Behind the Candelabra (with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon). That's why perhaps Entertainment Tonight invited Thorson for an interview. In this interview Thorson admitted (quite evasively) that his relationship with Michael Jackson crossed the boundaries of friendship.
One may believe or disbelieve the man... I just would like to share a link with my readers: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/93764-depression-2.0-sunday-in-kerouac-alley
Just more information for reflection.
Scott Thorson On ET Online
Hmmm, they say Liberace's ex is back from jail and willing to talk about sex with Michael Jackson?..
6 Mar 2012
Arnold Klein - A Friend of Michael Jackson?
This blog is certainly not about Arnie Klein, but since he produces soo much mess around Michael Jackson's name on his FB page I'm going to write another blogpost mentioning him.
What really amazes me is that there are some people who seem to really believe Arnie's ramblings - at least judging by comments to his FB posts. He's got fans!
As you may know about a year ago Arnie started to accuse his former employees Muhammad Khilji (I'm really sorry if I make mistakes in his name) and Jason Pfeiffer of embezzling Klein's money. The sum keeps increasing: in the beginning it was 10 million dollars, the last time I checked it was 22 millions.
His next move was to sue both Khilji and Pfeiffer - they answered with counter-suits. Counter-suit of Jason Pfeiffer contained plenty of impressive details about his former boss. (Don't forget to click the links!)
I'm really unable to recall all the people Arnold Klein accused already (former employees, lawyers, etc.) and all the accusations - they appear regularly and keep becoming more and more ridiculous. (Arnie has plenty of enemies - he makes them way too easy). One of his favourite... um... villains is certainly Jason Pfeiffer. First he was just a liar and a fraud, recently he became a killer (in Klein's sick imagination of course).
In the end of 2009 it was reported that one of Klein's former employees was found dead in Los Angeles. Bruce Ayers died of acute alcohol intoxication according to his autopsy. There are some hot heads among fans of Michael Jackson who try to find some conspiracy everywhere, but upon reading the autopsy personally I didn't find anything strange in this death. Bruce Ayers wasn't found in the alley of Klein's office (Southern San Vincente Boulevard is far from the place where Klein's office situated at the time), he had an almost empty bottle of vodka with him and he was not a friend of MJ. Besides the guy was an obvious drug and alcohol abuser with fatty liver, atrophic/fibrotic pancreas and some other health problems.
Recently Arnie posted a photo of a CD autographed by Michael Jackson.
It reads: "To Bruce" - supposedly to Bruce Ayers.
"Jason gave these items to my house man Alex for massages after Bruce died. Did Bruce get help to OD" - Arnold Klein wrote as a comment to the photo.
Yeah, we have a real detective story here!
So, Klein hints that Jason Pfeiffer helped Ayers to OD. Criminal acts like this have to have a motive, don't they? Bruce Ayers died in December of 2009. He was fired in the beginning of 2009. Why would Jason Pfeiffer need his death?.. To take possession of his belongings?.. Like this CD? Um, I guess price of MJ's autographs rose after his death, but actually it's not something extremely rare, smth. to kill people for (at least for someone with millions stolen from Klein already! LOL!)
This CD reminded me of something familiar - there was an auction of Arnie's belongings in January; several CDs with autographs by MJ were auctioned: http://www.bonhams.com/usa/auction/20105/lot/1064/. Two CDs on the left look suspiciously similar to the one on the picture posted by Klein. It's difficult to me to make out what is written on those CDs, but it looks like there are different names on them - to Scott, to Jin (or Jim maybe) and "Love to Klein". I don't know what is written on the first one and I just wonder who are Scott and Jin?.. As well as why both CDs were in Klein's possession. I suspect that the situation was quite simple: once Michael Jackson signed several CDs for Arnold Klein and his entourage - including Bruce Ayers. Then Bruce Ayers was fired and left the CD in Klein's office - that's how the CD got in Arnie's possession. Though perhaps there was one more stage: the one who got the CD was Alex Rivera (he is a masseur) - just put in his pocket this property in abeyance and then returned it to Klein recently.
(I hope it was not Alex who helped Bruce Ayers to OD, I don't believe that anyone would want to help the poor guy to OD - I don't know and I can't imagine any reason for it). Who dragged Jason Pfeiffer into the story - Alex or Arnie?
Arnie Klein totally disgusts me by now.
This "friend" of MJ does almost everything that a normal friend shouldn't do: he inflates a ridiculous rumour that he might be a biological father of MJ's kids endowing the controversy around them, he speaks on TV about MJ's health (which is a breach of doctor's ethics), he does everything to harm a person who was MJ's boyfriend slandering him in every possible way and suing him... He even "outed" MJ - though it doesn't seem like Michael would be too happy about it.
The funniest - the most preposterous thing here is that some fans of Michael Jackson prefer to be on the side of Arnie Klein and to believe his lies. Arnie "admitted that he lied about relationship between MJ and Jason" - fans are eager to believe him now. It's unbearable when your world is collapsing, isn't it?..
Is Arnold Klein a friend or a foe of Michael Jackson?.. An enemy in disguise of a friend?
What this "friend" was doing to MJ throughout his life? Why was he giving MJ all those doses of Demerol during the last months of Michael's life? Why does he deny that he gave MJ Demerol on May of 2009 so furiously now? When did Michael's "relationship" with Demerol started and who helped it?
Why, why, why?..
Is it envy towards Michael's greatness, anger of a gravely ill person, pure craziness or maybe MJ stole a march on Klein? I'm afraid I'll never get an answer to this question.
What really amazes me is that there are some people who seem to really believe Arnie's ramblings - at least judging by comments to his FB posts. He's got fans!
As you may know about a year ago Arnie started to accuse his former employees Muhammad Khilji (I'm really sorry if I make mistakes in his name) and Jason Pfeiffer of embezzling Klein's money. The sum keeps increasing: in the beginning it was 10 million dollars, the last time I checked it was 22 millions.
His next move was to sue both Khilji and Pfeiffer - they answered with counter-suits. Counter-suit of Jason Pfeiffer contained plenty of impressive details about his former boss. (Don't forget to click the links!)
I'm really unable to recall all the people Arnold Klein accused already (former employees, lawyers, etc.) and all the accusations - they appear regularly and keep becoming more and more ridiculous. (Arnie has plenty of enemies - he makes them way too easy). One of his favourite... um... villains is certainly Jason Pfeiffer. First he was just a liar and a fraud, recently he became a killer (in Klein's sick imagination of course).
In the end of 2009 it was reported that one of Klein's former employees was found dead in Los Angeles. Bruce Ayers died of acute alcohol intoxication according to his autopsy. There are some hot heads among fans of Michael Jackson who try to find some conspiracy everywhere, but upon reading the autopsy personally I didn't find anything strange in this death. Bruce Ayers wasn't found in the alley of Klein's office (Southern San Vincente Boulevard is far from the place where Klein's office situated at the time), he had an almost empty bottle of vodka with him and he was not a friend of MJ. Besides the guy was an obvious drug and alcohol abuser with fatty liver, atrophic/fibrotic pancreas and some other health problems.
Recently Arnie posted a photo of a CD autographed by Michael Jackson.
"Jason gave these items to my house man Alex for massages after Bruce died. Did Bruce get help to OD" - Arnold Klein wrote as a comment to the photo.
Yeah, we have a real detective story here!
So, Klein hints that Jason Pfeiffer helped Ayers to OD. Criminal acts like this have to have a motive, don't they? Bruce Ayers died in December of 2009. He was fired in the beginning of 2009. Why would Jason Pfeiffer need his death?.. To take possession of his belongings?.. Like this CD? Um, I guess price of MJ's autographs rose after his death, but actually it's not something extremely rare, smth. to kill people for (at least for someone with millions stolen from Klein already! LOL!)
This CD reminded me of something familiar - there was an auction of Arnie's belongings in January; several CDs with autographs by MJ were auctioned: http://www.bonhams.com/usa/auction/20105/lot/1064/. Two CDs on the left look suspiciously similar to the one on the picture posted by Klein. It's difficult to me to make out what is written on those CDs, but it looks like there are different names on them - to Scott, to Jin (or Jim maybe) and "Love to Klein". I don't know what is written on the first one and I just wonder who are Scott and Jin?.. As well as why both CDs were in Klein's possession. I suspect that the situation was quite simple: once Michael Jackson signed several CDs for Arnold Klein and his entourage - including Bruce Ayers. Then Bruce Ayers was fired and left the CD in Klein's office - that's how the CD got in Arnie's possession. Though perhaps there was one more stage: the one who got the CD was Alex Rivera (he is a masseur) - just put in his pocket this property in abeyance and then returned it to Klein recently.
(I hope it was not Alex who helped Bruce Ayers to OD, I don't believe that anyone would want to help the poor guy to OD - I don't know and I can't imagine any reason for it). Who dragged Jason Pfeiffer into the story - Alex or Arnie?
Arnie Klein totally disgusts me by now.
This "friend" of MJ does almost everything that a normal friend shouldn't do: he inflates a ridiculous rumour that he might be a biological father of MJ's kids endowing the controversy around them, he speaks on TV about MJ's health (which is a breach of doctor's ethics), he does everything to harm a person who was MJ's boyfriend slandering him in every possible way and suing him... He even "outed" MJ - though it doesn't seem like Michael would be too happy about it.
The funniest - the most preposterous thing here is that some fans of Michael Jackson prefer to be on the side of Arnie Klein and to believe his lies. Arnie "admitted that he lied about relationship between MJ and Jason" - fans are eager to believe him now. It's unbearable when your world is collapsing, isn't it?..
Is Arnold Klein a friend or a foe of Michael Jackson?.. An enemy in disguise of a friend?
What this "friend" was doing to MJ throughout his life? Why was he giving MJ all those doses of Demerol during the last months of Michael's life? Why does he deny that he gave MJ Demerol on May of 2009 so furiously now? When did Michael's "relationship" with Demerol started and who helped it?
Why, why, why?..
Is it envy towards Michael's greatness, anger of a gravely ill person, pure craziness or maybe MJ stole a march on Klein? I'm afraid I'll never get an answer to this question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)