Category Archives: Gossip

The Juicy Stuff can be found here!

From “Searching For Neverland” To “Life After Neverland”

paris-jackson-rolling-stone-cover-b499cf9c-3bdb-44d2-bb11-2ea90e8b4d2eIn the time since I was last able to post, two controversial issues have rocked the MJ fandom and have ensured that the name Michael Jackson remains a hot commodity in the headlines. I am referring to the outrage that erupted over SkyArt’s “Urban Myths” and the casting of the very white Joseph Fiennes as Michael Jackson, the resultant cancellation of that project (only to be replaced within 24 hours by news of another MJ film project–the Lifetime project entitled “Searching For Neverland”) and, finally, Paris Jackson’s explosive Rolling Stone interview which was released January 24. The title of that interview, fittingly enough, was “Life After Neverland.” Both events have also ushered in their share of controversy, with race being a common thread that linked much of the controversy over both.

Look, I KNOW this is what they were going for…but that didn’t make this ridiculous casting disaster anymore palatable!

joseph-fiennes-michael-jackson

 

 

hat

When rightful public and social media protests led to the cancellation of the “Urban Myths” episode, there was an immediate backlash from those who decried “censorship” and were incensed that politically correct protests over casting a white actor to play a black icon could lead to the cancellation of a project-especially a project that, presumably, had already been filmed and was set to air. The funny thing is that, as I read through many of the comments, I got the distinct feeling that most of these people probably didn’t even really care that much about this silly TV episode, and that probably most of the ones raising the biggest hoot over it wouldn’t have even tuned in to watch it, anyway. But as usual, everyone has an opinion if the subject happens to involve the name Michael Jackson. I also got the distinct feeling that their protests and supposed “outrage” wouldn’t have been half so vehement had the focus been any other famous black entertainer besides Michael Jackson. In fact, they probably would have sided with the protesters. But apparently, because Michael Jackson’s physical appearance did become “white” (actually devoid of pigment) in his last two decades, many apparently felt that made it “okay” to cast a white man to play him. To be fair, the entire “Urban Myths” series is intended as a comedic parody of the celebrities it portrays, and Michael Jackson is not the only celebrity being held up for spoofing in the series. Many well respected icons such as Bob Dylan are also getting the treatment in this series, and there does not seem to be any campaigns afoot to halt their episodes. Moreover, there is a pretty clear disclaimer that these tales are, in fact, urban myths that are not supposed to be taken as factual (hence the show’s subtitle of “True-ISH stories”). However, there are much more complex issues at stake that made the Jackson themed episode especially tasteless. If fans and family had been angry before at the knowledge of Joseph Fiennes’s casting, it was as nothing compared to the outrage that hit when the promotional trailer for the episode was released. The clip featured what promised to be a buffoonish parody of Michael Jackson as some sort of real life mix between The Mad Hatter and Willie Wonka who, while on a fictional trip to escape 9/11, apparently makes random stops to romp through the woods exploring nature.

The questionable casting decision of Fiennes aside, I don’t think the portrayal was intended to be disrespectful so much as it was simply doing what parodies do-that is, exaggerating certain characteristics of the subject for comedic effect. During this era, Michael often did come across as a kind of whimsical, sprite-like figure who espoused the wonders of nature and the importance of maintaining childlike innocence. At the same time, however, this was only one facet of what we know was a very complex artist and individual, and to reduce his entire persona to such a one note portrayal is both insulting and misleading (indeed, such portrayals largely remain the reason Jackson remains so misunderstood by the public at large). One only has to look at that atrocious Man in the Mirror TV movie from 2004 to realize how damaging such portrayals have been. At best, these portrayals give the impression of an innocent man/child. But they also reduce him to seemingly nothing more than a deluded-even mentally ill- individual out of touch with reality. I once had a conversation about Michael Jackson with a bus driver who said she had always loved his music but was convinced “that boy needed some therapy or something.” I asked what had led her to that conclusion. He “needed therapy” based on what criteria, exactly? I asked her if she had even read that much about him. “No,” she answered honestly, “but I saw that movie where he was just running and jumping around with that bunch of kids. It was bizarre.” Of course, she couldn’t remember what film she was referring to, but I knew instantly. She was talking about Man in the Mirror.

Well, here’s the thing: That movie, too, had some good intentions. If anything, the writers seemed convinced they were presenting a balanced portrayal of Michael that might lead to some casting of public doubt on his guilt as the Arvizo trial approached. At the same time, they seemed to think that the only way Michael could possibly be acquitted in the court of public opinion was by portraying him as a delusional and regressed man/child-the Peter Pan myth incarnate.

One day the right project may come along that perfectly captures Michael's quirky, sprite-like charm. But that project hasn't come along yet.
One day the right project may come along that perfectly captures Michael’s quirky, sprite-like charm. But that project hasn’t come along yet.

If a project ever got it right, they could certainly do much with the idea of an idealistic man who truly believed in the power of childlike innocence–one who nevertheless became crushed and ultimately destroyed  by the realities of the corrupt adult world-but that project has yet to surface, and would certainly take a far better and more sensitive writer than any who have thus far turned their hand to a screenplay on Michael Jackson’s life. If such a project were ever to emerge, I would certainly be the first to applaud the courage of bringing it forth. But so far, the biggest challenge that has marred these otherwise well-intentioned projects is that it is difficult, at best, to offer a portrayal that balances that fine line between whimsy, childlike idealism and lunacy. Most films make the mistake of tipping that balance on the side of lunacy, rather than by taking a much needed cue from films like Finding Neverland.

But the truth of the matter is that no Michael Jackson film project is ever going to be totally free from controversy. From casting decisions, to the portrayal itself, to what elements of his life are explored and which are ignored, all will be decisions that are not going to please every critic and certainly not every fan. Even This Is It-a movie that starred the man himself-was not immune to controversy, but instead became one of the first truly polarizing projects to tear apart the fan community.

However, there are reasons why the kinds of portrayals such as what “Urban Myths” was planning are especially dangerous. I know that some will scoff and say, “Lighten up; it’s just a comedy” and I might agree-if this was some occasional, one-off deal or if it was anybody but Michael Jackson, an artist whose reputation has only begun to rehabilitate itself after decades of being dragged through the mud, an artist whose very humanity continues to be fogged by a public narrative forged on tabloid myths and comedy skits. As an artist myself, I appreciate the concept of parody and fully support the freedom of artistic expression. At the same time, as someone who admires Michael Jackson in all of his three dimensional complexity, I understandably have issues with the insistence on constantly casting him into the same cliched and worn-out mold, which only serve to reinforce misconceptions that many already hold (as Michael himself once said, if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth).

I applaud SkyArt’s decision to cancel the airing of the episode (although I suspect it will still surface in some form). But the upshot of the matter was that the decision to cancel the show led to a predictably severe backlash in which ill informed commenters, bloggers, and journalists felt compelled to put in their two cents’ worth of opinions about Michael Jackson and race. Out came the usual parade of cliches’: “He wasn’t black by 2001; he was white”; “Well, he wanted to be white, anyway” and on and on. Inevitably, such typical comments would often be framed by the even more typical question of white privilege: “What’s the big deal?” I remember getting so heated with one particular poster on SkyTV’s Twitter that I wrote, “Sure, and let’s bring back the days of minstrel shows, black face comedy and Italians in bad wigs playing Native Americans. I mean, what’s the big deal?”

However, I was quickly brought to an even more unsettling revelation. There was a time when such a response might have provoked a genuine, “Gee, I never thought about it like that.” But this is the era of Trump’s America, where all notions of what have been perceived as politically correct progress seem to be regressing. I am no longer convinced that I am dealing with individuals who are even remotely capable of feeling shamed by such statements.

Similarly, Paris’s statement in her Rolling Stone interview that she identifies herself as a black woman (let’s keep in mind she had a black father and was raised as a Jackson) unleashed another round of furor from this same faction. Within 24 hours of the interview going public, BET and Wendy Williams both made headlines with statements like, “Not everyone is on board with Paris identifying as black” as if it is really supposed to matter who is “on board” with it or not.

One would certainly think that someone like Wendy Williams-who herself has had to endure much controversy, gossip, and speculation about whether or not she is, in fact, trans gender-would be more sympathetic to Paris. And, look, I get what Williams was saying, that someone like Paris will never have to worry about the stigmas of racial profiling, but the same argument could be made for any biracial person who just happens to look more like their “light complexioned” side of the family. To single Paris out for this kind of treatment is not only unfair to her, it is a slap in the face to every person of mixed race ethnicity, especially those who choose to identify with the side they least physically resemble. I am mixed Native American and Irish ancestry. For all outward appearances, I look “white” but am proud to identify myself as Native American. Among my relatives, I have many dark skinned, black haired and brown eyed siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews who do show this lineage. But just because my genes determined that I would look more like my European ancestors does not change the fact that, on the inside, my blood is still more than half Cherokee. Yet I know how racial snobbery works. I have seen it and have myself been a target for it. For people like me, full blooded Natives will often point fingers and make the same argument: “Look at you. You can be Indian by choice. You have no idea what it’s like to have grown up on a reservation, to get the dirty looks and to be spit on when you go into town,” etc etc.” Part of me acknowledges they are right, of course. I don’t have to worry that I’m going to be pulled over and harassed by police because I fit some dark skinned profile or stereotype that they have of a person with brown or black skin. By the same token, however, it makes me resentful when I feel that my right to identify as I choose is being infringed upon by people who know nothing of my family history or my genetic makeup. Always, the first defensive thought that snaps into my mind (and which I often have to bite my tongue to refrain from saying) is that “We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if I had olive skin, black hair and brown eyes.”

I am stating this , of course, because it has direct correlation to what I see happening now. No one would be making those hateful comments to Paris if she had come out looking, I suppose, more like a Jackson and perhaps less like her white mother Debbie. But it goes even deeper than that. The real source of the outrage stems from something much deeper, uglier, and more psychologically complex, which is the deeply and culturally ingrained belief that Michael Jackson wanted to be white (not just that he had a skin disease) and that he somehow went out of his way to “purchase” white children that are not biologically his. This belief is now so persistent that no amount of evidence to the contrary, no statements from Michael Jackson or from his children themselves, can persuade them to any other view. I doubt at this point that even a confirmed DNA test would do much to change this view. I am firmly convinced now that people are going to continue to believe whatever they choose to believe about Michael Jackson or his children regardless of any evidence that might stand in direct contradiction to those beliefs.

In other words, there seems to be a deeply ingrained sense of justification on the public’s part that both Michael and his children are lying (or in denial or some extreme case of delusion) and therefore it is perfectly justifiable to hurl insults and to attempt a kind of “calling out” with every interview and every public statement uttered. One truly has to wonder why so many feel the need to be so seriously invested in this topic, and why race continues to be the public’s most ongoing concern when it comes to Michael Jackson’s children.

The resentment stems from a deeply ingrained public belief that Michael lied-and that his children are continuing to perpetuate that lie. But such excuses are really nothing but a pretext to justify media bullying.
The resentment stems from a deeply ingrained public belief that Michael lied-and that his children are continuing to perpetuate that lie. But such excuses are really nothing but a pretext to justify media bullying.

Nevertheless, I didn’t really start out here to make this a commentary on Michael, his children and race. It’s just that all of these recent events-and the public’s reactions to them-have served as eye openers in reminding me of just how hateful human nature can be, but I am referring to much more than just the usual barrage of hateful comments that pepper any article relating to Michael Jackson or his race or his children. What has struck me even more deeply this time is the absolute and delusional sense of entitlement that the media, the public-and yes, even some fans-have displayed in regard to the Jackson family, their race and even their genetics. The simple fact is that people somehow feel entitled to bully Michael’s children-and to continue to bully their father from the grave-out of some enraged sense of entitled belief that it is okay because “they aren’t really his biological children,” or “they aren’t really black” and because it has become all too easy now to pick apart anything they say as either a result of outright lying, or as a by product of some delusional upbringing. Sadly, if this only came from the media or the usual faction of MJ hater internet trolls, it would be easy enough to excuse. But now it seems to have even trickled down to the fandom, and over the last few years, I have seen an alarming and polarizing divisiveness growing over Michael’s children. It started back in 2012 when Paris first sounded the alarm on social media about her grandmother Katherine’s “kidnapping” by relatives, and since then has escalated as the children have matured and come into their own, all of which has included their fair share of controversial tweets and sometimes polarizing stances on controversial issues. For example, when Prince Jackson spoke out publicly in support of “All Lives Matter,” he was immediately attacked on social media by fans who called him “white” and said that he was not Michael’s son. I was aghast and appalled to see such hurtful comments being hurled at Michael’s son by his own supposed “fans.” It’s not that I think we have to agree with everything they say. What he said was certainly controversial, coming from the son of the man who gave us “They Don’t Care About Us” (but, also, let’s not forget his father was the same man who gave us “Heal the World”). I understand why “All Lives Matter” is an affront to “Black Lives Matter” but my point is that there are ways to disagree without resorting to personal attacks. Those fans who tweeted to Prince that he was “not his father’s son” bespoke of something truly evil that I fear lies simmering just beneath the surface of the fandom, and this is a genuine distrust/hatred of his children by some factions (due to nothing more than their light skinned appearance)which has only intensified since they have come of age, old enough to forage their own identities beyond their father’s and to state their own opinions. It reminds me of some of the uglier aspects that I see happening right now in our country, where certain segments feel they have squirmed too long under the yoke of political correctness, and now suddenly feel liberated to say exactly what they really felt all along. But to tell this young man that he is not his father’s biological son-something that at best remains only media speculation and has never been confirmed-is crossing a line that no journalist, hater, or fan has the right to cross.

But none of Michael’s children it seems, has both invited and been targeted by this polarization quite like Michael’s strong willed and often outspoken daughter Paris.

Ever since the moment when she took the microphone at her father's memorial, the media and the public have had a fascination with Michael Jackson's beautiful and strong-willed, outspoken daughter Paris.
Ever since the moment when she took the microphone at her father’s memorial, the media and the public have had a fascination with Michael Jackson’s beautiful and strong-willed, outspoken daughter Paris.

Paris’s interview with Rolling Stone was a brutal, no-holds-barred, painfully honest reflection of her life. It had the right title-“Leaving Neverland,” the perfect metaphor for growing up and leaving behind the life of innocence that she had there, with her father. Even though I have my own issues with Rolling Stone‘s refusal to truly give Michael Jackson his due as an artist (as well as their own generally white rock elitist attitude) this piece reminded me of why I have always loved Rolling Stone‘s interviews, from the time when I was a teenager and first set my sights on pop music journalism as one of my life’s callings. Like the best classic Rolling Stone interviews, it is not a piece confined by tight boundaries or restrictive content. It freely rambles at a leisurely pace, thoroughly pulling the reader into Paris’s world and the surreal life-part halcyon; part chaos-that has come with being a child of arguably the most famous icon in the world.

To those like Wendy Williams who questioned, what has Paris done to deserve a Rolling Stone cover and feature, I think it is a fair question to raise. I’m sure there are a million talented music artists who probably deserve that kind of recognition, and here is Paris Jackson whose only claim to fame is a famous name. But let’s face it, ever since that heartbreaking moment when she took the microphone at her father’s memorial and said, “Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine” both the media and the public have been fascinated by her. That fascination has never abated, and as we have watched her grow from that shy and geeky little girl to a beautiful and brazenly outspoken woman, it has only intensified. Among her father’s fans, she is often both applauded for her strong stances and, by turns, referred to as a “spoiled brat” and “poor example” when she refuses to tow a certain, expected line (which has ran the gamut of everything from her fashion choices to her public outspokenness on addiction, race, and other controversial issues).

As for why Paris chose to do the Rolling Stone issue, it’s obvious that she is looking to launch her own show business career. That should be no shocker. It’s what she has wanted ever since she was a small child. Even in an early home video, she can be heard telling her father, “I want to do what you do.”

Paris had set her sights on becoming an actress long before her father’s passing, and although her goals were disrupted in her early teens due to depression and-as we know now, addiction issues-she now seems to be back on track.

paris-and-michael-paris-and-michael-jackson-11020598-500-466Okay, so that might explain the motivation behind doing the interview, but the next question is: Why is this even a polarizing issue? I don’t get the resentment over it. I could see if it had been a negative review full of trash talk about her father, but it isn’t that at all. In fact, she speaks of him as glowingly and lovingly as she always has. And yet, as I read many of the reactions to her interview on social media and fan sites, I was struck by the especial venom that many of these comments dripped with. There were fans who said she was lying (again, this is false entitlement) but lying about what, exactly? Again, the reason I found the comments so puzzling is because I had to wonder if, indeed, we had read the same interview. There were some who said that she cast doubt on Michael’s parenting. Again, I had to ask: Did we read the same interview? I went back over the entire thing with a fine-tooted comb, wondering what I must have possibly missed. And out of all of it, the only thing that could be construed as “bad parenting”-if we really want to split hairs over something like this-is that she says he “had kind of a potty mouth” and could curse “like a sailor.”

To be honest, I, too, felt that the comment on Christopher Columbus-“he fucking slaughtered them”-sounded more like Paris than Michael talking, but I don’t doubt those were Michael’s sentiments and if he told the kids that, then so what? He told them the bloody truth. But this points to a bigger truth that seemed to color perceptions of the entire interview. Every time Paris is making a statement regarding a broader point of truth that she wanted to get across about her father’s values, or to exemplify the kind of person and parent he was, readers start splitting hairs over the way she expresses it, or the words with which the idea is framed, rather than the general truth about her father’s character that she is really trying to get across. Thus, there are readers who will overlook the fact that Michael was teaching his kids the true facts about history because-God forbid, we all know Michael didn’t curse like that! How dare she!

But it goes deeper. It turns out, the more I investigated, the more it seemed that a lot of people were jumping the gun about this interview based on-yes, poor reading comprehension skills, limited attention spans, and a willingness to start spreading rumors about the interview’s contents without even bothering to fact check what was actually said in the piece. First of all, we need to separate the truth of this interview’s contents vs. a lot of the bullshit that has been circulating around the internet.

To address one of the biggest false rumors to come out of this piece, Paris stated that she was “sexually assaulted” at age 14 by a “stranger.” I have since heard some circulating rumors that this individual may have, in fact, been someone known to the family but I cannot confirm that those reports are true. In any event, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that this was an awful, traumatic thing that this girl endured, and yet instead of having sympathy for her, I’ve seen many condemn her for speaking out about it. Why? Well, it seems that some ignorant reporter or someone skimming through the whole article too hurriedly to even be bothered with details-or perhaps simply as a result of willful malice- picked up on that detail and somehow twisted it into an accusation that Paris had stated her father had abused her. There was yet another variation on the bullshit twisting of this incident where some dim witted fan (yes, I said dim witted!) started an internet rumor that Paris claimed she was raped in front of her dad. Where that idea came from I have no earthly idea. From Mars, maybe?

First of all, anyone who has actually used two brain cells and invested fifteen minutes of time to actually read the article knows that is a piece of bullshit lie that is nowhere in the interview. Paris does state she was sexually assaulted, but at age fourteen, which would have placed the alleged incident as over three years after her father passed! Here is the actual passage, as quoted from the article. It is the only mention of sexual assault anywhere in the piece!

There was another trauma that she’s never mentioned in public. When she was 14, a much older “complete stranger” sexually assaulted her, she says. “I don’t wanna give too many details. But it was not a good experience at all, and it was really hard for me, and, at the time, I didn’t tell anybody.”

I saw some fans debating as to whether she may have been referring to the incident having taken place in front of her current boyfriend, Michael Snoddy. But again, this is a clearly a case of people jumping the gun about the interview’s contents without having actually read it, or apparently having read it so hurriedly that they couldn’t be bothered with details. Since she clearly states this happened when she was fourteen, it was long before Michael Snoddy was in her life. But more important to note, there is no mention of the name “Michael” anywhere in conjunction with the incident. I have pasted the passage verbatim exactly as it appeared in the article, and nowhere is the name “Michael” mentioned. She isn’t claiming she was assaulted by someone named “Michael,”; she isn’t claiming to have been assaulted in front of someone named “Michael” so why this has even been a topic for debate-either in the media or among the fandom- I frankly have no earthly idea.

Obviously, this confession, along with many others such as her issues with addiction, depression and mental illness, are not a reflection at all on Michael’s parenting, but rather, a brutally honest confession from his daughter about the traumas she has endured since his passing, mostly as a direct result of losing the only parent she knew and the only one who was able to give her any sense of stability or true guidance in her life. Anyone who chooses to read it otherwise is either seriously challenged in reading comprehension skills or choosing to be willfully selective about the bones they want to pick with Paris. Through it all, my impression between the lines was that of a lost child who is keenly aware that her path would have been much different if her father had lived, but it is the hand she was dealt and she has worked hard to overcome her demons.  That is no one’s fault-either hers or her father’s. It is simply the reality of what she has grown up with as Michael Jackson’s daughter and as a child who lost a parent much too early.

Another controversial passage from the interview that seemed to become the topic of hot debate was whether Paris had referred to her father as “homophobic.” That debate stemmed from this passage:

She says Michael emphasized tolerance. “My dad raised me in a very open-minded house,” she says. “I was eight years old, in love with this female on the cover of a magazine. Instead of yelling at me, like most homophobic parents, he was making fun of me, like, ‘Oh, you got yourself a girlfriend.’

This was more a case of simple bad phrasing, but the actual meaning should be obvious. What is clearly meant by the statement is “unlike many parents who are homophobic” but again, we are splitting hairs since the passage makes it abundantly clear that Michael wasn’t outraged about this incident, but took it in good natured stride. Certainly a topic that remains hotly debated among many factions is that of Michael’s own sexuality, and among fans (most of whom do not question that Michael was straight), there is also ongoing debate as to just how tolerant vs. conservative his own views were. Personally, I believe Michael grew up with very conservative views but, obviously, those views would have ultimately been shaped, challenged, and altered by a life spent in the very liberal world of show business. Either way, that Michael was comfortable enough in his own views to tease his daughter about “having a girlfriend” simply means he wasn’t a parent who was going to get bent out of shape over something like that. Of course, there are also those who will come from the opposite end of the spectrum and say, “Look, he was encouraging his daughter to like women. What kind of parent does that?” so either way, someone is going to get their feathers ruffled. But again, a close reading of the passage reveals neither approbation or condemnation-Paris, at best, was probably only four to seven years old at the time-but like she said, it simply shows him as a tolerant parent and individual.

homicide5Yet another controversial bomb dropped in the article was Paris’s statement that she and the family believe that Michael was murdered. Well, at least for some in the media, this seemed to be a “shocking revelation” although I have no idea why. Michael’s death was ruled a homicide in 2009; was the subject of two highly publicized death trials, and has been the subject of ongoing speculation and conspiracy theories for years. So I’m not exactly sure why now, all of a sudden, the media is all over Paris and acting as if she’s dropped some shocking bomb over her dad’s death or acting as if they think she is sitting on some deep, hidden secret information that no one else knows. I know exactly what Paris was referring to and it is the same beliefs that many of us have held to since 2009. It continues to be a source of futility and frustration because many of us, just like Paris, know that Conrad Murray’s measly two year sentence wasn’t even partial justice, but whatever the case, it definitely is neither “news” nor, at this point, “shocking.” I think Paris puts these statements out there because she is still bothered that more hasn’t been done to bring real closure and justice to this case, yet every time she does, she is setting herself up as a target-sadly, from those who will insist she is delusional “just like the rest of the family” to even those fans who will resent her for keeping that pot stirred. Let’s not forget, the media has already made up its own narrative of how Michael Jackson died. It’s the tragic story of one more superstar who couldn’t handle the pressures of fame, and self destructed as a result. Anything that deviates from that narrative is going to be met with skepticism and ridicule. But since it does make good copy, the tabloids will naturally be all over Paris’s statement as if it is news all over again. Already Radar Online has used it to hatch a phony story about Michael’s body being exhumed for another autopsy-an article so shoddy they even quote FBI specialist Ted Gunderson-deceased since 2011-as if he has just issued a statement regarding the need to exhume Michael’s body! Yet nowhere in that article do they actually bother to connect the dots. No one is disputing the coroner’s ruling that Michael Jackson died from a propofol overdose. That isn’t the point; this isn’t about disputing what killed Michael Jackson. The point that remains is-who did it, how, and why? And was it a slow, methodical poisoning, or a decision made that night to finish him off? These are the kinds of questions that have to be raised. But to resume my original point, it is absolutely ludicrous that the media has swarmed all over Paris for this one comment, to the near exclusion of everything else in her interview (which, let’s not forget, is mostly about all that she has had to overcome, from suicide attempts to being a rape victim).

And, to some extent, I feel anger towards those who will devote more time to worrying over how she makes her father look in an interview-or the impression she is giving of him-than any actual concern for her as a person in her own right. I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know the reasons it bothers us every time one of Michael’s kids speaks out. What will he/she say, and will it make their father look bad or cast aspersion on him in some way? We have to somehow get past that. The usual claws are going to come out every time Michael’s kids are featured in any public light-positive or negative. We know the usual questions of, “Are those really his kids?” are going to come up; that stupid people are going to waste more time dissecting their skin tone and eye color than anything they have to say. I felt bad for Paris that she even had to feel the need to “go there” in her interview. She doesn’t owe the world an explanation for her genetic makeup; for her skin color or how she chooses to identify. As if I hadn’t been irked enough by so many of the rude and nonsensical comments I saw in the aftermath of this interview, it was even more appalling to see fans who were seriously discussing the question of why Michael’s kids didn’t just get a DNA test and publicly end all of the speculation?

First of all, Paris did claim at one point to have had a DNA test. She even posted it on her Twitter-“Where do you think my first haircut went?”-but for some reason (surprise, surprise!) the media chose to ignore it completely.Interesting, considering that we know the media is all over those kids’ twitter accounts like hawks! They sure didn’t waste any time pouncing on it when Prince made the statement about “the blood of the covenant” being “thicker than the water of the womb.” This was no surprise, since Prince’s comment appeared to confirm the media narrative, while Paris’s served as a direct contradiction. Apparently, however, Paris deleted the tweet soon afterward. I’m not sure why (perhaps on advice from the family or a publicist) but I do know she put it out there, however briefly. I had even screen capped her tweet (I still have it saved under the title “Paris DNA test”) but now if I try to upload it, I simply get an error message stating that the file cannot be opened. So I am sorry I can only state my word that I did see such a tweet from her, and I am sure there are some fans who will recall it because it was being discussed briefly on social media before it completely disappeared. But it is clear that her statements in the Rolling Stone interview continue to confirm that she apparently has every reason to believe she is a biological Jackson. Do I sometimes get weary with it all and wish the kids would just get a DNA test and put out an official statement? Yes. But as I stated previously, these days I am not so sure that even that would be enough to shut up the doubters. People would still insist on clinging to their own stubborn beliefs; they would say the tests are fake; the family is lying.  Nothing would change.

As for the impression she portrays of her father in the interview, it is the same one we have always been privy to-a devoted father who loved his kids, and was the center of their world. The interview isn’t so much about that as it is about what happened to this young woman when that world was pulled out from under her.  And yet, when incidents happen such as the inexcusable incident of Paris being jumped and cornered by paparazzi at at an airport only days after the interview hit, there were those who said “she brought it on herself” and “it’s not a good look” for Michael Jackson’s daughter to be running in an airport (yes, someone said that).

First of all, any viewing of that footage should be enough to make anyone who says she is “asking for it” to feel shame. Paris is clearly overwhelmed by this ambush (I agree with all those who asked: Where was security?) and cornered like an animal. Again, the media twisted the headlines to make it sound like she “freaked out” over being questioned about her father’s murder, when the reality of what the footage shows us is that she was CLEARLY “freaking out” over being ambushed and bombarded. By the point where she is running and crying is clearly when these reporters should have backed off. When I saw the footage, I immediately thought of Princess Diana and her own father, Michael. When Princess Diana died as a direct result of being chased by paparazzi, one media headline referred to her as a deer being hunted. Yet this is ample proof that the media never has, and never will, learn by its mistakes. When I saw this footage, the first thought that popped into my head was, “This is another suicide in the making.” I hope against hope that I am proven wrong, but in show business, I have seen these vicious cycles repeat themselves so often that nothing truly surprises me anymore. This is, in many ways, the culmination of the tragic cycle that began when Michael, a baby of five, was thrust into the spotlight far too young.

But there is another side of that tale that we must acknowledge, which is that Michael loved his life in the spotlight and, even if given a choice, probably wouldn’t have changed a thing.  I always believed that Michael had a definite love/hate relationship with fame, and to those who question why Paris continues to court this kind of attention even while knowing the consequences, I think this is at least part of the key that we must understand. Prince has said that she is more like Michael than either himself or his brother, and I think this is one of the biggest traits she shares with him-the craving for adulation that drives her to the spotlight on the one hand, coupled with the fragility that makes her easily overwhelmed when it gets to be too much. And it may indeed be a fair criticism to say that Paris has brought some of the negative attention she receives on herself. After all, no one is forcing her to be on social media; no one (at least we can presume!) is forcing her to do interviews. But to argue that Michael’s children should stay silent or somehow make themselves invisible isn’t addressing the true, underlying problem. It needs to start with the sense of entitled bullying that gives others the right to presume that they somehow have more knowledge about what is “right,” what is “correct,” and what is “fact from fiction” in a celebrity’s life than they know themselves.

No doubt, Paris is taking on the role of celebrity with full knowledge of what that life entails. She grew up with it; she saw what it did to and for her father. But she is also an adult now and old enough to make her decisions. She is, after all, the product of a show business family and has grown up immersed in that world. It shouldn’t come as any shocker that she has grown up knowing fully well the inherent risks of celebrity, but also its rewards. As to whether she possesses any actual talent, that remains to be seen. She may well fall flat on her face. Then again, she could usher in the new generation of Jackson family superstars. We just don’t know, and it is too early to tell. But whatever happens, both her mistakes and her triumphs are going to play out on the world’s stage. At some point, those of us who are more invested in her father’s legacy than in hers’ will nevertheless have to learn to let go and let her make her own mistakes. Without those mistakes, she will never be able to flex her wings and grow, either as a human being or as an artist in her own right.

The interview’s publication has no doubt raised a lot of the old arguments as to whether “this is what Michael would have wanted” for his kids. Well, first of all, Michael never explicitly stated that he did not want his children to be in show business. I’m not sure where that myth comes from. In his autobiography Moonwalk Michael stated:

“A lot of celebrities say they don’t want their children to go into show business. I can understand their feelings, but I don’t agree with them. If I had a son or daughter, I’d say, ‘By all means, be my guest. Step right in there. If you want to do it, do it.”-Michael Jackson, excerpted from Moonwalk p. 282.

Ten years later, even after the birth of his first child, his views had not changed. This is what he told Barbara Walters in 1997:

 

It is true that Michael kept his children’s faces masked to protect them from the paparazzi (and from the threat of kidnapping, which I have heard-and frankly believe-was a much bigger concern for him) but even he knew there was going to come a time when the masks would have to come off. He couldn’t keep them hidden forever, and frankly, that was never his intent.

And since Paris’s interview has been released, it has raised another old, often beaten about issue that I think, finally, needs to be laid to rest. Once again, I heard all of the old arguments that “this is not what Michael would have wanted.” These kinds of arguments may have had validity when the children were younger and were being exposed to some often questionable decisions and publicity stunts. But I am not so sure these arguments hold the same validity now that Prince and Paris, at least, are adults and old enough to make their own decisions. Paris will soon be turning nineteen. At some point, it has to cease being about what Michael would have wanted, and has to become about what she wants for her life.

And we must face the hard truth that inevitably would have confronted Michael had he lived-that is, at some point, we have to know when to let go. Prince, Paris and Blanket have indeed had to learn to life in a “life after Neverland.” It hasn’t always been pretty, or easy, but I am still confident that these young people will never do their father anything less than proud.

article-0-0583B1CD000005DC-754_468x411

Exposing Radar Online’s Secret Shame: The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom-Pt 3

A Magazine That Was Part of Michael's Stash-The December 1994 Issue Of Playboy. When They Couldn't Build A Case Against Him For This...They Went After His Art Books Instead!
A Magazine That Was Part of Michael’s Stash-The December 1994 Issue Of Playboy. When They Couldn’t Build A Case Against Him For This…They Went After His Art Books Instead!

 

“The most pure people are always torn down.. It will continue to be proven that my beloved dad has always been and forever will be innocent.”-Paris Jackson

As I’m readying to post this third installment of my series rebutting the lies Radar Online was responsible for spreading throughout the media, I am noticing a disturbing trend. Memories are all too short in today’s world of sound bite journalism, and already the malicious lie Radar Online released just in time to darken celebrations honoring Michael’s death anniversary is starting to fade from headlines and is dropping from the search engines. Traffic here has pretty much stabilized to normal, and on social media, many fans are back to tweeting images of Michael’s gold pants and all of the usual stuff we enjoy discussing when news is slow. Maybe in a way that is a good thing if this story that was never a story is dying down, as it should.

12-Year-Old Michael Famously Flipped Through A Playboy Issue During A Jackson 5 Interview
12-Year-Old Michael Famously Flipped Through A Playboy Issue During A Jackson 5 Interview

But I find it beyond disturbing that what Radar Online and the rest of the media did to Michael Jackson and his family this past week is being allowed to sink without formal retraction or apology, even after being called out by several conscientious journalists and even after the Santa Barbara authorities issued a statement concluding that they had issued no such documents to the media and that the documents included falsified information, which their statement made plain in no uncertain terms. It is also inexcusable that much of the media has turned a deaf ear as artists like Jonathan Hobin and others whose work has been similarly slandered as “pornography” have spoken out.

From Jonathan Hobin’s Twitter:

Jonathan Hobin Retweeted MJJJusticeProject

More than a 1000 tweets and the media are not listening.

Michael’s friend Corey Feldman has also reached out to the media time and again to say that he was abused as a child by a Hollywood pedophile ring. He continues to insist that his real abuser is still out there, but the media and-most importantly, the police-stopped listening to him as soon as he told them his abuser wasn’t Michael Jackson. The response to any offers to reveal his true abuser? Crickets chirping. Even The Daily Mail ran a story on it in 2013, so no one can say Feldman hasn’t been trying to get the truth out for a long time-that Michael Jackson provided him the only sense of normalcy he had as a child.

Corey Feldman In 2013 When He Came Forward About His Abuse-He Said Cops Didn't Care When They Found Out It WASN'T Michael Jackson.
Corey Feldman In 2013 When He Came Forward About His Abuse-He Said Cops Didn’t Care When They Found Out It WASN’T Michael Jackson.

Time and again, I have seen this cycle repeat itself-a really malicious story is printed about Michael (we are guaranteed at least one really good hit piece every six months or so) and the furor is stirred for a little while; then, eventually, the story drops from the headlines and everyone becomes complacent again-for a little while, until the next storm hits. This cycle has got to stop! How long can they keep picking the flesh from a dead man’s bones? I am going to continue working to expose these people for as long as it takes-not because I enjoy keeping the story going or “fanning the flames” but because I refuse to rest this time or to become complacent again until Radar Online and all of the outlets who spread this latest trash have issued a FORMAL RETRACTION AND APOLOGY. In the last seven years, I have seen quite a bit that has been allowed to simply sink without formal retraction-a good case in point being the phony FBI files story which was eventually squelched after a damning story in CNN exposed the hoax. At that time, many media outlets that had ran with that story simply deleted it, allowing it to quietly drop out of search engines. But not everyone. And again, because no formal retraction was ever given, the bogus story is still occasionally unearthed and given new legs for the uninitiated who, of course, will not remember the expose’ of 2013 (as I said, memories are fleetingly short in the media world-but that doesn’t make the damage done any less forgiving).

We really do have to ask some tough questions about the especial vindictiveness around this particular anniversary-June 25th, 2016. For example, although certainly a much less damaging story than the fabricated assertions of child pornography, The Daily Mail ran a hit piece on June 25th asserting that Michael had viciously dissed Prince during the taped sessions for his “Moonwalk” autobiography, claiming he was “the rudest person I ever met.” The purpose of running with such a story on June 25th of all dates is pretty obvious: They know that the emotions of Prince fans right now are very raw (the man just died in April) and, of course, what better way to play up the “rivalry” than by having Prince fans turn en masse on MJ on his own death anniversary! A cheap tactic to be sure, although I credit Prince fans with more intelligence than to fall for it. The fact is, if any such tape exists, it hasn’t surfaced. Secondly, even if we extended benefit of the doubt and assumed maybe, okay, he said it, I would say to that: Big whoop de-do deal. If truth be known, most fans would be shocked to know what artists really have to say about each other in private moments-they are human beings, after all. Let’s not forget that this was the era in which Prince had just refused, twice, to collaborate with Michael and had effectively snubbed every overture Michael had made toward him. But what we do know is that their respect for each other as artists was immense and only grew exponentially throughout the years (I even learned recently that Prince hung out with Michael in the recording studio during the HIStory sessions!) and in 1983, it was Michael who persuaded James Brown to call Prince up on stage with them.  As I have been writing in many previous blog posts, Michael’s relationship with Prince-just like his relationship with Madonna-was a complex one fraught with all of the complexities that comes with success, ego, and artistry, but also with the kind of immutable bond that only those who have shared the experience of fame can understand. This is nothing more than celebrity gossip, of course, which doesn’t mean much in the grander scheme of things-gossip, as always in the celebrity and tabloid world, will come and go, and we can’t afford to expend too much energy getting overly riled up about these things. However, I am concerned-very much-with the especially slanderous allegations of the past week which cannot afford to go unchallenged.

With that in mind, I am going to resume where I left off in refuting the claims that Radar Online and other media outlets professed, via overly sensationalized headlines, made about the 2003 police reports on Neverland. To do that correctly, I will need to go back to a previous page that was missing from RO’s originally published 88-page document. Here goes:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view

Item #505 is especially important to this discussion, as this was an apparently sealed package containing three books that will be crucial to our discussion in this post-Underworld, Room To Play, and Drew and JimmyRoom To Play is important because this book played a prominent role, both directly and indirectly, in creating many of the most sensational media headlines. First, this was the volume for which Jonathan Hobin’s “American Idol” photo was mistakenly identified as being a part of in Radar Online’s pages that were falsified. As discussed in Pt 2, we now know that this image was not included in Room To Play at all, but instead, was part of Hobin’s collection of art photography titled In The Playroom-an important detail because In The Playroom, a book published in 2008, could not possibly have been a book recovered during the 2003 raid. Granted, we could attribute such an oversight to human error, but this was not the kind of error that would have been allowed in an actual police report! However, it is exactly the sort of error that could be made unknowingly by someone doing a sloppy Google search for images from Room To Play-just exactly the kind of error that could have been made by Robson’s and Safechuck’s attorneys before “leaking” these newly sensationalized documents to Radar Online (the “Amercian Idol” photo featuring a JonBenet Ramsey lookalike with a noose tied around her neck is now among the twenty-seven pages that have suddenly “disappeared” from Radar Online’s documents). Just as a test, I did a Google search myself for In The Playroom. Guess what image came up? That’s right-Hobin’s photo!

Here you can see page 11 of Radar Online’s version, where the “American Idol” photo from In The Playroom is identified via a handwritten note as being from Room To Play.

file:///C:/Users/user1/Downloads/RO-report-88-pages%20(5).pdf

This image does not appear at all in the original report-and now we know for good reason! Because it didn’t exist in 2003, and was never recovered from Michael Jackson’s home!

But what about the actual book, Room To Play, as well as the other two books that were in this sealed package? I would like to take an especially close look at Room To Play because the description of this book in the report was responsible for a particularly reprehensible headline ran by Vanity Fair, an article written by Laurie Bradley  claiming that pornographic photos were seized in Michael’s home of children’s heads morphed onto adult bodies. That headline was particularly disturbing because they had the brass balls to run it above  one of the most innocent photos of Michael that could have possibly been used-a photo op from one of one of the many charitable events at Neverland for under privileged, inner city children.

"Vanity Fair" Twistedly Used This Innocent Photo Of Michael Inviting Inner City Children To Neverland To Help Promote Its Malicious Agenda!
“Vanity Fair” Twistedly Used This Innocent Photo Of Michael Inviting Inner City Children To Neverland To Help Promote Its Malicious Agenda!

The sensationalized juxtaposition of the image and headline were completely intentional. Unfortunately, this was a hit piece that received a lot of traction from the fan community because Vanity Fair was the first outlet that also ran the rebuttal statement from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department denying that they had authorized the documents for release and also that some of the information appeared to have been tampered with. That was an important step, but unfortunately, having that information did not lead to a retraction or formal withdrawal of the story-it is merely tacked on as a kind of obligatory footnote, where it is bound to be all but ignored amidst that glaring salacious headline.

Even though I knew that no such photos had ever been claimed to have been found in Michael’s possession (this “revelation” was total news to me!) I couldn’t help but find the headline disturbing. I know of pedophiles who have been convicted for possessing just such material. It is a particularly sick “hobby” in which pedophiles will sexualize children by placing images of their heads and faces onto adult bodies. But going back to the report, it is clear that those descriptions came solely from the description of the book Room To Play (i.e, these did not refer in any way to photos Michael had personally taken or doctored himself, as the Vanity Fair headline suggests).

Cover Photo From Simen Johan's "Room To Play"
Cover Photo From Simen Johan’s “Room To Play”

I did some more digging, and guess what? Room To Play, like so many of the books that came into question from this report, is a perfectly legal art book by Simen Johan that can be purchased on Amazon! (Provided one can afford the exorbitantly high cover price of $750.00; evidently the book must be out of print or an extremely valuable collectible!). An excerpt from a review of the book written in July of 2003 stated thus:

Johan has many similar images in Room to Play.  “Untitled #71.  1999” shows a girl in a gymnasium, taking a model’s pose, one hand on her hips, facing to the left of the viewer into the distance.  She is wearing a transparent one-piece outfit, and her young face does not match the pre-pubescent body.  Indeed, the darker complexion of the face makes it easy to guess where Johan stuck the image of the head to that of the body.  In “Untitled #79.  1999” a girl with a baby doll-like face but very styled hair is reclining in a park, exposing adult breasts.  She has bright eyes but her face is utterly devoid of expression.  The picture brings to mind bring to mind some of Hans Bellmer’s use of dolls and the psychoanalytic interpretations such work invites.  It’s easy to analyze them as the expression of forbidden fetishistic desires, embodying a consciousness of their own depersonalization.  They also could be read as feminist works, protesting the sexualization of young girls in pageants, and the loss of childhood innocence that comes with the commodification of girls’ bodies. 

However, the other pictures here tend to discount such readings, because they are darker, more bizarre, and more complex.  The first image in the book, “Untitled #71.  1998” shows a boy and a dog, and is more obviously a well-crafted collage.  They seem to be in a trailer park surrounded by high-rise apartment buildings.  The boy has Asian facial features and looks at the viewer.  His body is that of a toddler, but his face is of an older boy.  He is wearing an odd sort of hat or crown, with a furred cylinder topped by a crude bejeweled dome with a cross in the middle.  His underwear has a wet dark spot in the front.  The little dog is a highly groomed fluffy white poodle, also wearing a garish ornament on its head.  The picture has a drab feel to it, but it relishes its own incongruity.  “Untitled #65.  1997” shows a girl in a foggy field holding a dead sheep, with flies on her and the sheep.  Her face is intend but not upset.  “Untitled #78.  1999” shows a boy and girl dancing in their underwear against a background of jet planes leaving impressive looped jet trails.  The blond boy looks about four years old, and is wearing a wet tight fitting pair of swimming trunks — he seems to have a rather large penis for his age.  “Untitled #75.  1999” shows a girl in a room with the curtains drawn.  Her face gives little clue to her age — her hair is unevenly cut and disheveled, and her upper teeth have large gaps between them.  Her eyes are rolled up in her head and she has running mascara; a tear rolls from her right eye.  She is wearing a bright silver necklace and the pendant shines from inside her mouth.  She looks drugged or even possibly dead.  These are not pretty images, and their flirting with taboos of child sexuality, disturbance, and death place Johan’s work in the realm of a rather adolescent surrealism.  Yet they are emotionally powerful, and even darkly humorous. 

A detailed discussion of the book (and others) on the Vindicating Michael website contained these images from the book to give a feel for Johan’s particular style of photography:

room-to-play-4-pictures

Something that struck me was that the image at top left bore an uncanny resemblance to Aubrey Powell’s famous cover for Led Zeppelin’s 1973 Houses of the Holy album. That cover photo had, in turn, been inspired by the ending of Arthur C. Clark’s novel Childhood’s End. So…does this mean that all of us who own classic rock albums are guilty of owning porn?

Led Zeppelin's "Houses of The Holy" Album Cover
Led Zeppelin’s “Houses of The Holy” Album Cover

The image on the top right also reminds me a lot of a slightly demonized Carol Ann, the character that Heather O’Rourke played in Poltergeist. 

As with Jonathan Hobin, whose work was discussed in Part 2, the images in Johan’s work can be viewed as disturbing because they depict children in various extreme settings, but they are not pornographic in nature. The purpose, as with Hobin’s work, seems to be depictions of how society has victimized children. We know that childhood was a subject dear and close to Michael’s heart; it permeated much of his own work, and in songs like “Childhood,” “Little Susie,” “Hollywood Nights” and “Do You Know Where Your Children Are” he was brutally honest in confronting the darker aspects of childhood. “Little Susie” depicts a child who is murdered. Both “Hollywood Nights” and “Do You Know Where Your Children Are” feature as subjects young girls who have been sold to prostitution.

Michael’s Own Artistic Vision Of Childhood Could Be Quite Dark: He, Better Than Anyone, Recognized It’s Not Always A Happy Time For All Children. “Little Susie,” For Example, Is The Story Of A Murdered Girl.

Given Michael’s artistry and vision, it’s easy to see how and why he might have found inspiration in these works-that is, if we can assume he indeed had ever even looked at or opened this book! Let’s not forget, it was described along with the other three as being inside a sealed packaging-one for which the the seals had to be broken in order to review the items! This suggests the possibility that Michael could have merely received the books as gifts and had never opened them-for sure, we know Michael received thousands of such gifts from fans every day, as Michael often said and which has been confirmed by many sources who knew him.

I hav boxes of unopened fan mail from years ago that we haven’t gotten 2. now LEAVE IT ALONE

doesn’t mean he purchased it, or even looked at it. I’m sure U hav weird stuff ppl giv U. Magnify

 But even if these were books he legitimately owned and had purchased, they really speak of nothing except Michael’s insatiable curiosity to learn as much as he could about the human condition.

However, what about the morphed images referred to in the report? Although some of the images were described in the report as “appearing” to sexualize the children by morphing them with adult images, the intent in most of the images seemed to be more about showing the children as neglected and prematurely aged by a society that has forced them into adulthood too soon-a society that has literally left them with no “room to play.”

This Is One Of The So-Called Scandalous "Morphing" Images From "Room To Play"
This Is One Of The So-Called Scandalous “Morphing” Images From “Room To Play”

What of the other two books contained in the packaging-Underworld and Drew and Jimmy? Kelly Klein’s 1995 book Underworld is also a book that can be purchased on Amazon.  It appears to be nothing more than a boudoir coffee table art book featuring Calvin Klein-like images of models wearing underwear in ads throughout various decades of the twentieth century. And guess what? It was a book highly endorsed by my all time favorite author of vampire  and Gothic fiction, the venerable Anne Rice, who wrote the introduction!

One Of My Favorites, Best Selling Author Anne Rice, Highly Endorsed "Underworld" As
One Of My Favorites, Best Selling Author Anne Rice, Highly Endorsed “Underworld” As “A Monument To Our Freedom.” Yet For Simply Owning It, MJ Was And Is Being Raked Over The Coals!

“The camera empowers you to be intimate with the lens, even abandoned, in a way that may not be possible with another human,” Rice muses. “This book is a monument to our freedom, not only to express ourselves but to want more than we are allowed. The camera is the safest vehicle for this excess.”-Anne Rice, from the introduction to Underworld. 

Underworld is also a highly rated book on goodreads.com.

drew and jimmy
The Cover of “Drew and Jimmy” by John P. Salisbury

Drew and Jimmy by John P. Salisburyis also available on Amazon and appears to be little more than a pictorial of rural boyhood. This is what one reviewer wrote of the book:

I came across this book on the recommendation of the author’s mother. She was my grade school art teacher and mother of a long time classmate-Burton. I had not seen her since Burton’s funeral, but when she mentioned Patrick’s book I couldn’t resist. I had been back in Walnut Grove for a weekend visit for a girlfriend’s wedding. I had left for college a few years before and kept going. My family was not as deep rooted there as the Salisbury’s were, but I grew up there and those roots run just as deep. Whenever school or life was getting stressful, the Delta was the first place I’d run to. It was a truly wonderful place to grow up, and the book depicts the eviroment beautifully. When I saw the pictures of the glass-like water, it made me want to be behind a ski boat once more. I knew Burton well, but Patrick was always the quiet older brother. I did know that they were total opposites personality wise. Burton was always the daredevil; class clown, as well as very gifted artistically like his mother and now as I see, Patrick also. My earliest memory of Burton I have is:him standing on a huge round table in our kindergarten classroom, which he then fell off of and cracked his head open for a few stitches. We grew apart after graduation, but he was part of many good memories I had while growing up in Walnut Grove…including one of my first crushes. I think about him often, though my life is far away from where I knew him last, and I miss him. Thank you Patrick for a little more closure:)-

Even the original police report couldn’t offer too much to say about this book or its contents, conceding that it contained merely “photographs of two Caucasian male juveniles that appeared to be in their early to mid teens. The boys in these photographs are primarily clothed with occasional photographs of them wearing swim trunk-type clothing.”

From what I can tell, the following example photographs are about as “erotic” as it gets, and quite frankly, these young men appear to be far older than “early to mid teens.”

drew and jimmy2

 

drew and jimmy 3

Typically, the report concluded of all three books:

“None of the above noted books contained materials, which depicted illegal activities (including sexual acts with children) None of the books would meet legal requirements to be considered child pornography.” -Sheriff’s Department, Santa Barbara County Continuation Sheet Page 3. 

 Keep in mind that the police, as well as prosecuting attorneys, were well aware that these items did not constitute pornography. But when their search for actual pornography had turned up nothing but a bunch of heterosexual adult magazines, their only alternative, as stated previously in Part 1, was to seize any items that could be construed as possible “grooming material.” However, the jury didn’t buy that argument when these items were presented in 2005, and it is a lame argument that doesn’t hold up any better under scrutiny today.
So again, we must ask, what can possibly be the motive in attempting to “retry” Michael on these items in the court of public opinion, eleven years after his acquittal and seven years after his death? That is the burning question a lot of people want answers to right now. We can’t afford complacency until we have those answers-not just for the sake of Michael’s musical legacy, but for his children and all artists whose works and reputations are being impacted by the media’s carte blanche attitudes in printing anything they want and running wild with a story without the slightest degree of fact checking.
I will continue combing through these reports; hopefully I should be able to have the next post up sometime this weekend.
In the meantime, I want to continue to urge everyone to please sign these petitions:

Exposing Radar Online’s Secret Shame: The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom-Pt 2

What Michael Kept "In The Closet"...Is Maybe Not All That Sensational.
What Michael Kept “In The Closet”…Is Maybe Not All That Sensational.

In the time since I posted Part 1 of this series late on Friday, the focus throughout social media has been largely about Radar Online’s tomfuckery in falsifying the documents they claimed as “official” police documents in the original story they dropped on June 20th. My purpose in Part 1 was mainly to provide a broad overview of the story and to rebut the sensationalistic media claims that these were “new” or “recently unearthed” reports; secondly. to remind readers that there was nothing in those original reports that ever stated child pornography had been found at Neverland-a statement that was signed off by both the defense and prosecution, as well as Judge Melville. From there, I touched briefly on how Radar Online had faked a lot of the information and was making grossly exaggerated claims about the items that were in the authentic reports.

Late Friday, just as i had posted Part 1, the crap really started to fly when Canadian artist Jonathan Hobin reached out to the media to let the world know that one of the photographs Radar Online had falsely inserted as “evidence” of Michael’s “sick and twisted, disturbing stockpile” of sexually graphic images featuring children was, in fact, part of Hobin’s well known collection titled In the Playroom. It is, in fact, an art book of photographs for which the theme is the depiction of children who have been victims of violent crimes. It is a collection that uses “shock art” as a call to social awakening of what is happening to children in our modern society. Further research revealed that the media has covered this collection and its author quite extensively. There were stories on Vice.com as well as an extensive write-up for The Huffington Post by Priscilla Frank in 2013-yes, the same Huffington Post who jumped on the MJ story bandwagon and repeated verbatim Radar Online’s lies that an image from this collection supposedly was included as part of Michael’s “stockpile” of “disturbing images.”

Yet here is what Huffington Post wrote of Jonathan Hobin’s book in 2013:

Although generally childhood is portrayed as a time of innocence and bliss, the reality is often far more sinister. Photographer Jonathan Hobin captures our childhood fascinations with the darkest aspects of adult life in his polarizing series “In The Playroom.” The series recreates disturbing historical moments such as the attacks on September 11, 2001 and JonBenét Ramsey’s death. We reached out to Hobin to learn more…

Note that the JonBenet Ramsey photo is clearly mentioned here, which means The Huffington Post as well as other media outlets were clearly aware of this photo’s origins as part of an art collection.

Jonathan Hobin's Photo "American Idol" was falsely identified as a photo in MJ's collection at the time of the 2003 raid of Neverland
Jonathan Hobin’s Photo “American Idol” was falsely identified as a photo in MJ’s collection at the time of the 2003 raid of Neverland

But the real clincher is that Hobin’s book wasn’t even published until 2008! So this book was not possibly something Michael Jackson could have even owned in 2003 when the raid of Neverland took place!

This same photo was featured as part of a Huffington Post slideshow of Hobin’s work in 2013-there was no mention then of it being anything other than a work of art!

Hobin has tried to reach out to the media to spread the truth about the photo and its origins. So far, I don’t know if anyone has taken him up.

Im the artist of the infamous photo. Who wants the real story? via

hobin tweet

 

But interestingly, as soon as Hobin spoke out-and as soon as other media outlets began circulating that Radar Online had faked at least a portion of the documents-the original 88 page document Radar Online had posted suddenly lost 27 pages overnight, shrinking to a mere 61 pages. This is clearly a case of track covering! With no retraction and no formal apology forthcoming, the gesture of merely removing these blatantly falsified images and documents means nothing.  They created the damage by putting this fake crap out there in the first place-now that they’ve been caught, they are trying to cover it up.

And to make matters worse, now that the spotlight has been placed on how Radar Online falsified official police reports. they and their cohorts have merely created another diversion, one that is far more disturbing since it involves unfounded speculations about Michael’s own children and nephews. If this isn’t the ultimate in defamation, I don’t know what is! I do know that it’s time it has to stop; this feeding frenzy has gotten so crazy that anyone, it seems, can make up anything they want about Michael or his family-or his children (one of which, let’s not forget, is still a minor!) and have it printed by media outlets who will never bother fact checking the story. In fact, it’s scarier than that. One can truly speculate anything they want, and in so doing, create an atmosphere where people will believe it is fact. What they are doing is creating a lot of smoke to cover up the fact that there is no fire. It’s an old media tactic, but unfortunately, one that often has the desired effect.

Anyway, I guess I am allowing my anger to get me sidetracked and ahead of myself. What I intended with this series was to rebut Radar Online’s claims with what I know to be true about the Michael Jackson case and what was found (as well as what was not)-to separate truth from sensationalized fiction. And the best way to do that is just to go straight through the documents, addressing each item or issue as it appears. I will be basing this, obviously, on the original 88 page document which Radar Online has since deleted-not because I wish to further sensationalize their fabrications, but because I think it is important that everyone knows what they tried to get away with (I don’t think it was because they honestly didn’t think they would be caught; more like they just wanted to see how much and for long they could milk the story before the truth did  catch up). The fact we must keep uppermost in mind when reviewing these materials is that many of these items had already gone through one round of misinterpretations and attempts to view them out of the context of their original intent-remember, the prosecution was trying hard to build a case for them as “possible” grooming materials since they had no actual evidence on which to build their case. Radar Online (as well as Vanity Fair and others) then merely added another layer of sensationalism to what was already, in many cases, gross misrepresentations of these items. It has also been reported by sharp-eyed fans that many of the “fake” images obtained from internet sources carried identifying information pinpointing them back to Wade Robson’s and Jimmy Safechuck’s attorneys. You will be seeing this as we move through the documents and come upon the faked images.

Here is the first page of the document:

RO-report-88-pages (2) (1)

The first three pages, as noted, are missing so the document essentially picks up with page 3.  (Updated: You can find a discussion of the content of those missing pages here). The first item being discussed is Item #507, a drawing made on notebook paper of a boy in a circle. There were some apparent impressions made onto the paper by someone writing on a sheet of paper that had been on top of it, but nothing could be determined as far as what the writings may have been. However, anyone familiar with Michael’s art style knows that this sounds very typical of the types of drawings he liked to do. Many of his sketches have been seen publicly (many are available at a glance with a quick Google search) and we can see that, typically, Michael liked to draw self portraits of himself as a child, other famous figures and cartoon characters, or scenes that in some way evoke the essence of childhood. Below are some very typical examples of his art work:

mjdrawing2

mjdrawing1

 

mjdrawing3

mjdrawing4

 

mjdrawing6

It is very obvious, then, that the drawing described could have been very typical in style and content to any of the above. Notably, nothing further is inferred about the drawing other than that it would need to be “forensically processed” in order to read the latent writings. Translation: They knew they were wasting time even taking up space talking about it, as it was just a drawing of a boy sitting in a circle (interestingly, this could have been one of Michael’s many self portraits depicting himself in the spotlight, but without actually seeing it, it’s hard to say. All I know for certain is that, being familiar with Michael’s style and the types of subjects he liked to depict in his artwork, this is typical).

Moving on:

Next described is a book found in the arcade room, The Fourth Sex: Adolescent Extremes. The report describes it as a book about adolescents and the counterculture, with “some” pictures featuring apparently adult individuals “with no clothing, or in a state of partial dress.”

I did a little further research on this book (which frankly wasn’t hard-a quick Google search is usually is all the detective work that is required, since these were and still are perfectly legal art books) and found out that the entire project was part of an Italian art exhibition that opened in Florence in January of 2003. The project’s purpose, as stated on the pittidiscovery website was:

“an opportunity for reflection on the increasing importance of teenage tribes in our society. A society where the obsolesence of concepts of sexual and demographic identity reflects social changes in progress in a violent, contradictory manner. The fourth sex belongs to adolescents. A sexually indefinite moment, in which gender ambiguity prevails. Adolescents are not boys or girls and not yet men or women. They belong to a parallel, fluid universe, in a state of becoming. They are closely connected to the present, yet symbolically contain the seeds of future.

Adolescence is not just a phase of passage in human life, it also is a mental state, an existential condition with an overwhelming impact on lifestyles and trends. Adolescents are omnivorous, tireless consumers, distracted but also attentive, easily persuadable but also independent. Adolescents do not want to be well-balanced, they love extremes in everything: from fashion to art to music…

Unbalanced between the present and the future, adolescents appear to us as both agitated and strangely passive. They may give form to their world in an aggressive way, but at the same time they are also forced to come to terms with the labels, the judgments and  the formulae of the adult world.

Observed and studied by experts of all kinds, monitored in their behavior patterns, adolescents represent a decisive segment in the strategy of consumption. They adore clothes and music. They want to be cool at all costs. Fashion watches the teenage universe closely both as a source of inspiration and as a crucial target group, while contemporary art explores, exploits and analyzes the myth of the eternal adolescent. From the rebellion of the historical avantgardes, through the counterculture of the Sixties, to the doubts and uncertainties of Generation X, contemporary art has treated adolescence as an indispensable point of reference, coming to grips with its radical gestures, its violations and impatience.

The exhibition The fourth sex. Adolescent Extremes observes and portrays the restless territory of teenagers :an incredible resource of creative energy. The show lights a series of emotional fires where ideas meet and derail in new constellations of meaning. The materials in the show reflect the complex universe of contemporary culture: fashion, communications, art, music, cinema… The themes are many, and inevitably touch some of the nerve centers of our society. Talking about adolescence doesn’t only mean the subject of young people, but it also means talking about their restless relationship with the adult world. This doesn’t only mean representing the positive energies of this age group, but also exploring the insecurities and fears that can lead to terrible, extreme gestures. 

The two curators, Francesco Bonami and Raf Simons, intend to construct an exhibition that is itself an expression of the languages of adolescence, mixing expressive codes and disciplines. Drawing inspiration from the multiplicity of the languages of teenagers, The fourth sex will be a space in which different ideas and trends release, transforming the show into a place of encounter and dissemination.
The exhibition, installed at Stazione Leopolda by a group of young architects, the Cliostraats, sheds light on the strength, weakness and promises of the fourth sex. The book/catalogue offers a variegated montage not only of the images in the show, but also of supplementary iconographic materials, such as images from art, fashion, teenage icons, legendary films. The volume is also an anthology of the most interesting writings on the theme of adolescence, in which a mixture of poetry, literature, current events, journalism and essays, give form and color to all the contradictions and ambiguities of an unhappy age we will never regret.

After wasting considerable space to describe the book, the report clearly states: “None of the material within this book would meet the legal requirements to be considered child pornography.”  Get used to hearing that phrase; it’s one that’s going to crop up with just about every item described! The only thing they could try to claim is that such items could be used for grooming material. This, again, is going to come up a lot because, remember, it was all they had to go on and the prosecution was trying desperately to build a case on this!

Well, this is as much as I’m going to have time to post today, but I will continue on Wednesday to take you through both the real and “imagined” journey of Michael Jackson’s “stockpiled” porn. Sorry, though, if it isn’t as titillating as the tabloid accounts. Truth seldom is.

In the meantime, here is a cool rebuttal video that’s starting to go viral. Share it and make it go viral some more!

And don’t forget to sign:

“We’ve Had Enough” – An appeal to the fan community to take a stand against slanderous tabloids.

Read Firpo Carr’s statements rebutting Radar Online as well! This is in two parts. He gives an excellent example of how innocent items that didn’t even belong to MJ were entered as “evidence”!

http://firpocarr.com/firpofiles0625a2016.html

http://firpocarr.com/firpofiles0625b2016.html