Exposing Radar Online’s Secret Shame: The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom-Pt 1

Cik-9E5UUAAZzbnIt truly pains me to have to spend Michael’s death anniversary debunking the media lies and distortions that have made headlines this week, but this, unfortunately, has not been just another one of those trashy little tabloid stories that can be ignored. This is a vendetta that has grown wings, thanks to the lowly tactics of one particular publication whom I long ago “outted” as having a personal invested interest in slandering Michael Jackson and tarnishing his legacy. Yes, other publications have picked up the story, too, and I’ll have my bone to pick with them later. But for the most part, those publications have simply been guilty of the same old lazy, copy and paste journalism that we have decried for so long-you know, one outlet prints it, and all the others, not wishing to be left out of the hits, jump in on it like a pool of hungry sharks. Only in this case, a few did, at least, take the time to contact the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, and the statement obtained has been crucial in shedding light on what is actually going on here. Anyway, my point is that while other outlets have picked up and spread these false stories, we have to start where the evil truly lies-with Radar Online.

But first, let’s start by busting some of the distorted myths and outright lies that are circulating currently. I have been a dedicated Michael Jackson researcher for seven years. I have studied the in’s and out’s of the 2005 case brought against him-in which he was fully vindicated-and the 1993 Jordan Chandler settlement. And what I don’t know, I can get quickly from dedicated researchers  even more thorough and knowledgable than myself. This is going to be all about separating media sensationalism from factual truths-and be patient because this may take awhile; it is not going to be something I can neatly wrap up in a single post, though I certainly wish I could.

The first thing we must address is that the information and descriptions in these reports are NOT new or “recently unearthed” reports-this is all information that both the prosecution and defense were well aware of in 2004 when the indictment and grand jury process began. In fact, a lot of this information was leaked then and circulated in the press after the grand jury hearings, prompting a statement from both Michael’s attorney Thomas Mesereau (which was signed off by Judge Melville acknowledging that no child pornography had been found)that Michael Jackson read on air in 2004:

ClfQFP9WkAA2EgQ

 

Eventually, most of these items were deemed as inadmissible because they were commercially available art books that anyone can purchase legally. The “sadomasochism” books were adult books featuring adult subjects (he owned a copy of Madonna’s “Sex,” a book that was legally sold in bookstores in the early 1990’s) and because none of these materials fit the legal definition of child pornography-in fact, a lot of it wouldn’t qualify as pornography at all, but as artwork.  This left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing situation of having to build a case on Michael’s adult legal porn collection, which was-let’s just say-healthy, but not unusual for a single guy. Let’s remember, these people invaded his private quarters, after all. But essentially, this left the prosecution in the position of trying to build a case of child molestation against a man for whom the only “evidence” they had was issues of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse, Barely Legal, and the like-along with, well, a lot of art books. The thing you have to keep in mind is that the prosecution never had one shred of what we might call “smoking gun” evidence-the kind that usually leads to an easy, “case closed” conviction. There were no explicit love letters written to any child, no photos of himself or children engaged in sexual acts, no video tapes of himself with children in lewd acts, no taped phone conversations, no online “sex chats”-in other words, none of the things that can lead to an easy conviction in most cases. You have to remember that Michael was under constant FBI surveillance for over ten years. The reports eventually concluded nothing to be found. At one point, all of his computer hard drives were seized but a search of over sixteen computer hard drives seized in the 2003 raid  revealed nothing except that he occasionally visited a few adult legal porn sites where he liked to log in as “Dr. Black” and “Marcel Jackson.” Juicy gossip fodder, yes. Illegal; no.

Madonna's "Sex"-A book Michael was known to have purchased, is typical of what the prosecution referred to as "sadomasochism" books in his collection
Madonna’s “Sex”-A book Michael was known to have purchased, is typical of what the prosecution referred to as “sadomasochism” books in his collection

In the lack of any such hard evidence, the case essentially boiled down to accuser Gavin Arvizo’s word against Michael’s. From that point forward, the only hope that district attorneys Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen had was to construct their prosecution as a character assassination. In their desperate attempt to make “evidence” out of no evidence, the art books were argued (unsuccessfully) as books that “could” fit the definition of what a casebook pedophile would own, and the legal porn was argued to be “grooming material” (an argument that likewise did not persuade the jury, especially after Gavin Arvizo, under cross examination, admitted that a magazine he had earlier claimed to have been shown by Michael was an issue that, in fact, wasn’t even published until five months after the date of the alleged incident).

The problem is that, in the absence of any truly hardcore evidence, it becomes increasingly difficult to try to convince a jury of what someone’s “intentions” are with a particular photo or art book. You can’t second guess what is in someone’s head, or if they are using certain materials-legal or otherwise-for sexual gratification. That is getting into the realm of “reasonable doubt” and is not something that can be proven. The only thing a judge and jury can do is to look at a certain piece of exhibited evidence and ask: Is this pornography or is it not? And if it is pornographic, is it legal? Keep in mind that anything that isn’t, strictly speaking, child pornography cannot be held as admissible evidence because it is not criminal-at least certainly not in the United States-to own art books or adult legal sex books, no matter how “graphic” the imagery (which a lot of this, also, is being grossly exaggerated in the media reports, but one thing at a time).

The original Radar Online story that ran on June 20th did, in fact, acknowledge that these reports were from 2003 and are not new information, but they slanted their story in such a way that made it seem as though this was somehow “newly leaked” information or as if this was “newly discovered” evidence that somehow-for whatever unearthly reason-was never brought to light during the trial. This is simply not true, as all official court documents related to the 2005 case clearly show that these items were well known to both the prosecution and defense. Many of these items were discussed and exhibited before the jury in what came to be known as the infamous “Porn Day” at trial (a day for which Michael’s very religious mother Katherine chose to sit out). What was left out was left out simply because it was deemed not pornographic in nature and therefore, inadmissible evidence. Michael Jackson was subjected to one of the most zealous cases of prosecution that an individual could be put through. He had a district attorney who had made it his personal life’s ambition to put him behind bars-or drive him permanently from Santa Barbara County, which he eventually succeeded in doing. This was a prosecution effort that combed the globe in search of “victims,” evidence, and any witnesses willing to come forth, regardless of credibility, and that spent millions in taxpayer dollars in the process. Granted, Sneddon and Zonen may have had their moments of ineptitude, but one thing they could never be accused of was being unthorough or of committing a half assed investigation that would have left evidence of actual child pornography overlooked. Indeed, nothing in these reports was overlooked, nor was it withheld. It simply wasn’t child pornography, then or now.

This is an important fact to establish because I think the impression many are getting, from the slanted media reports, is that these items being discussed are some “shocking new bombshell” revelation that has just come to light. That simply isn’t true. This is all old news from a decade ago, and there is absolutely nothing in those reports that hasn’t already had its day in court-that is, of the items that even made it past the discovery stage. The media is trying to slant the story that way because it makes for more salacious headlines and click bait, but if you read the fine print, most have to own up at some point that these are, in fact, old documents dating to 2003 when the discovery process for the trial was underway. So, nothing new here and nothing that the attorneys, as well as the judge and jury, were not well aware of when Michael was tried and acquitted in 2005.

So the next question…why now? Well, that goes back to the close ties between Radar Online (formerly headed up by Dylan Howard)and the attorneys of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, as well as a certain traitorous “friend” to the Jackson family, Stacy Brown, Stacy Brown,who has made a career off of peddling smut to the tabloids. Robson and Safechuck both have civil cases pending against the Michael Jackson estate, and Radar Online has become their ally and willing mouthpiece. We know from the statement released by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department that they did not issue the documents to Radar Online or any other media source:

Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense.

But what’s most disturbing-and a fact that the rest of the media outlets who have run this story seem to be turning a blind eye to-is Radar Online’s willingness to falsify official documents and photos. Many of the media outlets who copied the original story have now updated their information to include this statement. That is at least a step in the right direction, I suppose, but still doesn’t take into account their apparent willingness to run a story that has been blatantly identified by the very authorities who investigated the case as false information.

Let’s look again at that official statement released by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department with the most crucial passages emphasized:

Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense.

 

This is a public statement that Radar Online intentionally falsified information being purported as official police documents. I will get more into the specifics of which parts are genuine vs. fabricated in the next installment, as well as a detailed account of those items actually listed in the official reports which were grossly exaggerated in an attempt to fabricate “evidence.”

The statement also makes it clear that someone other than an official source is responsible for feeding this information to Radar Online-someone (or someones) who timed this malicious smear campaign just in time to coincide with the remembrances and celebrations of Michael’s death anniversary-a time when the emotions of his family, friends, and fans are most vulnerable.

In the meantime, here are links to many of the media outlets that have already retracted the story and have exposed it for the malicious Radar Online hoax that it is:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/23/authorities-rebut-claims-child-porn-found-michael-/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/06/22/michael-jacksons-family-sheriff-respond-child-porn-allegations/86225804/

http://www.people.com/article/michael-jackson-estate-blasts-porn-reports

BET, it looks like, has removed the story altogether.

Most damaging to the hoax perpetrators has been this statement from Ron Zonen himself, one of the prosecuting attorneys who certainly would have moved heaven and earth to have the “evidence” against Michael Jackson he so desperately craved:

zonen statement

Let’s go back to the most important statements given here: “…there was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children.”

So what, then, is all the hoopla about? You’d be shocked and surprised to know! Obviously, the media uses words like “shocking,” “disturbing,” “harrowing” “disgusting” and so on to create click bait. I used the same tactic here. (Do I really think Radar Online has any sense of shame? Nah!). Yet if one truly examines and dissects the materials and images being discussed, it turns out that not only are all of them from legal sources (art books and such) but that most of the more erotic images are of adults! So…what’s the deal here? It actually seems that a huge media storm is being created over Michael Jackson’s tastes in art and adult erotica. Like I said before: Gossip fodder? Yes, maybe. Evidence of criminal behavior? No.  And Radar Online is purposely tampering with many of those images to make them “appear” more explicit than they actually are, as per this example. On the right is the image as Radar online posted it. On the left is the original image from the book it was taken from. As you can see, Radar Online purposely blocked out the crotches so as to make it appear as if the young men were naked, when in fact they were actually clothed in shorts.

meowKittens

UPDATE: MJ fans do great detective work (if only the media was this thorough!). The source of the above photo is a book titled Bigood by art photographer James Bigood, whose specialty is homoerotic art. This particular photo was from a 2009 reissued edition (which Michael most likely didn’t even own since its publication date was May 15, 2009-a time when Michael would have been busy rehearsing for This Is It and had only a little over a month to live; it definitely would not have been among the books recovered in the 2003 raid of Neverland unless-as sanemjfan pointed out in the comments below-Michael owned the original edition, which is possible. However, in any event, Radar Online did clearly doctor the image to make it look more graphic than it actually is, since the image on the left is what appears in Bidgood’s book (and needless to add, this is a book of homoerotic adult art, so even if Michael did own it, there is nothing shameful or illegal about it). You can learn more about Bidgood’s book-and his art-here:

http://www.booktopia.com.au/james-bidgood-bruce-benderson/prod9783836514521.html

http://www.homohistory.com/2014/10/james-bidgood.html

I will be posting more on this topic over the next several days, but in the meantime, for those who are curious about the extent of Michael Jackson’s porn collection, this is a very good comprehensive list . For the record, the items included in that list are the only actual pornography that was found. Also, an excellent series on the art books found in Michael’s collection-much of the source of the current media frenzy-can be found here .  As far as I can tell, this was the first post of the series. You can start there and follow the rest of the series through its various installments.

There is much, much more to come as I will be tearing down and exposing Radar Online lie by lie over the coming days. But as June 25th approaches, I want to add these parting words: Seven years ago, we lost an amazing artist, man, and humanitarian. From Ferguson, Missouri and Black Lives Matter to Paris, France and, most recently in the wake of the tragedy in Orlando, Michael’s music continues to be the music of healing for our planet. Why is it that whenever tragedy strikes, or there is a new awakening for the need to bring us together as a global family, it is Michael’s music that people turn to, time and time again?

Participants in Mass Vigil For Orlando Victims Sing “Heal The World”

Michael Jackson was a rare gift to the planet, one who certainly didn’t (and still doesn’t) deserve this kind of treatment. I said it on social media the other day, and will repeat it here: If the world spent a lot more time listening to the words he wrote, rather than obsessing over what he had in his bedroom, we would be the better off. Michael’s personal life has already been well dissected. He was put through a grueling and publicly humiliating trial that left nothing to the imagination-his inner sanctity completely ransacked, his most private possessions put up for public inspection; even his own body violated.

My point is that there is nothing new here to see. All of this “evidence” was hashed out in court a decade ago. So why is Radar Online so gleefully jumping on this fabricated smear campaign, regurgitating decades old information for which Michael Jackson has long been tried for, and acquitted? My guess, which is probably not too far off the mark, is that it is all part of a carefully orchestrated plan to force the estate into a settlement with Robson and Safechuck. And in Radar Online, they have the perfect, willing accomplice-a publication that doesn’t mind bending all the rules of fair play, or even falsifying information, in order to bait a gullible public into believing that a list of items that was reviewed and dismissed as “evidence” twelve years ago is somehow front page burning news.

He Was A Gift To The World That Deserved Far More Than What It Gave Him
He Was A Gift To The World That Deserved Far More Than What It Gave Him

Strangely, perhaps, the first thing I thought of when this story hit was the recently renewed controversy over the Confederate flag. President Obama said that the Confederate flag needs to be retired permanently to a museum, where it can be remembered as a part of history, but not flown as an act of defiance for an ideal that no longer exists. I feel the same way about all of this regurgitated information from Michael Jackson’s trial. Those documents (the real ones, that is) have resided in the Santa Barbara County records’ department for over a decade. They are a part of history, but no longer relevant. The trial ended in acquittal on all fourteen counts on June 13th, 2005, and Michael Jackson died on June 25th, 2009.

But just as there are some individuals who will never accept that the Civil War ended in 1865, so, too, is a faction who will never accept that Michael Jackson was fully exonerated by a court of law in 2005. To this end, they will continue to lie, to rehash and sensationalize old stories, to distort truth and yes, even to fabricate new “evidence” where none exists. It is all merely a thinly veiled attempt to keep an old battle going that has already long been fought-and won.

If you read this and agree that we need better laws to protect the deceased against this kind of slander, please sign this petition for the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates. It is an initiative that, if passed into law, will enable the heirs of deceased persons the same laws and protection against slander and libel in the media as living persons currently have.

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

UPDATE: Here is some explosive information that is just coming out via the Canadian press (big thanks to my friends  sanemjfan and Melanie who shared this breaking story on Twitter and FB): The artist of one of the photos that Radar Online “falsely added” to the 2003 police reports, Canadian artist Jonathan Hobin, has confirmed that his photo DID NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL 2008 and therefore it could not POSSIBLY have been confiscated as part of the 2003 raid!

Here is what Radar Online originally reported:

ramsey image

The full story behind the actual photo can be found here on the CBC news site. 

In an excerpt from the above article, Jonathan Hobin states:

A lot of the work that they’re referencing in the Radar Online report isn’t in fact pornography, but images obtained online from art books, according to Hobin.

“People are manipulating the context of art for their own sinister purposes. I think again, it harkens back to poor journalism and the excitement around creating drama that doesn’t exist,” he said.

Hobin believes the best way to put an end to the misinformation is for the police department in question to deny the claims.

“(The sheriff’s department) could have put out word immediately saying that this is someone’s attempt to … corrupt a previously existing police investigation,” he said.

“I’d like them to speak to it sooner rather  than later … everyone from Vanity Fair to Daily Mail to wherever, they’re talking about this thing that supposedly exists and to some extent I question if there is some sort of intention of them to allow that discussion to continue when they can put a stop to it right now.”

So there you have it…more proof of the lengths this rag has gone to in order to falsify and sensationalize the truth. Now Michael is being accused based on a photo that 1: Isn’t child pornography by any legal definition, and that 2: He could not possibly have even owned at the time of the raid. 

42 thoughts on “Exposing Radar Online’s Secret Shame: The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom-Pt 1”

  1. “Yet if one truly examines and dissects the materials and images being discussed, it turns out that not only are most of them from legal sources (art books and such) but that most of the more erotic images are of adults!”

    I would change this wording because “most” still implies there was stuff (even if just minimal) that did not come from legal sources or that were erotic images of children, which is not true.

    1. I used “most” I think mainly to differentiate between the items that are actually pornographic (his legal adult magazines, for example) as opposed to non-pornographic (the art books). But by the term “legal” that would include all of it since he owned nothing illegal that was found. So I’ll make that change because I see where it can be confusing-thanks for the catch!

  2. Seven years ago on Thursday 25 jun 2009 i was at work going for my morning break,an old man stop me and said to me,did you hear the news Michael Jackson died,i looked at him angry and i said another roomer don’t say thinks like that,but then i saw everybody talking and i run in my locker took my phone and i rang my son is it true i asked they haven’t confirmed yet he said and i felled the sadness in is voice,and before i had the time to get out from the room he rang me and told me that its true and he was really upset.I set down and i couldn’t stop crying.I dint go back to work i came home and i set in front of the television watching everything unfolding.No work the next day and i was a vegetable all weekend and my family too.How can this happened!Michael Jackson can not die.He spoke the universal language of love peace and unity,he loved us all including children but children loved him even more.What was it and children were so attracted to him,running to him like he was their father.Even if he wanted to stay away how could he push them away.No matter what they do or what they say the truth always speak louder and the fire of love is burning stronger.REST IN PEACE MICHAEL and thank you dear Raven for all you do and sorry for my mistakes but English is my second language.PEACE AND LOVE

    1. I still remember that day so well, too. I didn’t have access to a TV or computer that day. I was at work and it was before I had an office, so I was unaware of the drama unfolding throughout the afternoon. I heard it on the radio while driving home. A country station was playing “Thriller” (if you can believe that). Then they announced that the reason they had broken format was to “honor Michael Jackson who died today at fifty.” Like you, I was a mess for days. Researching about him is what actually pulled me out of my funk.

  3. “Eventually, most of these items were deemed as inadmissible because they were commercially available art books that anyone can purchase legally. The “sadomasochism” books were adult books featuring adult subjects (he owned a copy of Madonna’s “Sex,” a book that was legally sold in bookstores in the early 1990’s) and because none of these materials fit the legal definition of child pornography-in fact, a lot of it wouldn’t qualify as pornography at all, but as artwork.”

    The art books WERE introduced to court. The jury saw them all, or at least the ones with the most nudity. Madonna’s Sex book wasn’t among the books found in MJ’s possession, I don’t know where that coems from.

    1. “Keep in mind that anything that isn’t, strictly speaking, child pornography cannot be held as admissible evidence”

      Like you said MJ’s heterosexual pornography was admitted and it’s not child pornography. Several of the art books were also admitted and they were not child porn or even adult porn. And the prosecution never even claimed they were either child porn or otherwise illegal. What they claimed was that he used them to groom children, at least the adult heterosexual porn – and it was introduced on that basis. As for the books, one can argue whether most of what was introduced even should have been introduced or it was a mistake by Judge Melville to let them in. I mean most of the books introduced depicted adult male and female nudes. What does that prove about pedophilia? IMO they were rather used in the hope of prejudicing a presumably conservative Santa Barbara jury against MJ. Which is why Melville probably should not have let them in, but he did.

      And while Gavin claimed that MJ showed him porn magazines, but he never claimed MJ showed him art books to groom him. (Interestingly, the only ones claiming that MJ showed them nude art books to groom them are Robson and Safechuck, who made their allegations in the hindsight of the 2005 trial, with knowledge about the books that were found in 2003. In fact the prosecutors showed those books to Robson on the stand in 2005.) Anyway, much of what is listed in this document were actually introduced to the jury. It was never hidden, never a secret. Not only the prosecution, defense and the jury saw them, but also the media who were present in the court room. In fact, back in the day some TV shows analyzed the content of these books on TV. They bought copies of them and they showed what they were. Yet, the Daily Fail went on in its articles demanding to know “why the media was never informed about this”. LMAO. Just because you are totally, utterly, hoplessly ignorant, it doesn’t mean others did not know about it. The whole world did at the time.

      As for the porn magazines, although there was a legal basis of introducing SOME of them, since Gavin and Star claimed MJ showed them porn magazines, but again it is questionable that Melville allowed the introduction of all of them! Even ones with dates after the accuser long left NL. The detailed discussion of all of those porn mags alone took days. And what was the purpose exatly? Even the jury was puzzled:

      “The juror’s themselves later stated that they were “puzzled” regarding the inclusion of all these items, juror Hultman said after the acquittal, “…because those are adult magazines, and anyone can own them. It doesn’t prove the charge.” [LA Times, June 15th 2005]

      Once again, I think the purpose was to try to prejudice a conservative jury against MJ, but by the above quote it obviously did not work.

      (And not to nit-pick but the number of his computers were 16, not 60.)

      I agree that Robson/Safechuck’s team is behind the incredibly vicious attacks this week. RadarOnline wrote a trashy article about MJ every day. (I also suspect the Daily Mail may also be one of their mouthpieces, but the main one is RO.)

      Their connection to RadarOnline is well known among fans, but also the PDF itself that Radar posted indicates it probably came from Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers. There are handwritten notes on it that indicate that and that weren’t on the police’s original document. One note is about the prosecutors – how Zonen is retired now and there is a phone number to Auchincloss. The other is a stupid and desperate speculation trying to make something out of the line “Are You Scared Yet? Haha!” that was apparently printed on a pic. The handwritten note on that says it could be a sexual code to frighten kids into bed. LOL. Whoever wrote that probably never watched Ghosts.

      Also those inserted pages – not only with the pics – but the Precocet information. The only thing the original prosecution document says about Precocet is that a prescription for it was found. Nothing more. But whoever gave these docs to RO printed articles from the Internet about how Precocet can be used for sex addiction and those articles were added. The media again ran with this interpretation and said it as a fact that MJ used medicine for sex addiction. When in reality that’s just a speculation by whoever gave it to RO, probably Robson’s lawyers – probably in order to bolster their case with more salacious claims that also drag MJ’s drug issues into it. In reality, Precocet is not a sex addiction drug, but a painkiller first and foremost and there is no reason to believe MJ used it for anything else than its main function. He also took other painkillers, like Demerol, not only Precocet.

      1. I intended to delve into more detail about what exactly was admitted and what wasn’t in either the next or third installment of the series, but yes, the jury saw most of those books. The point, of course, was that all of these materials were presented to the grand jury, so none of it was material somehow “overlooked” or “hidden away and sealed” or any of the other garbage that is being touted.

        I can correct the number on the computers. Yes, it was 16 actually uncovered and checked during the raid.

        As per the note made on “Are You Scared Yet?” this is a perfect example of how both police AND prosecution attorneys work in trying to build a case out of nothing. I’m sure that Michael probably left a lot of handwritten notes of his lyrics and such lying around. Twisting song lyrics (or a line from a film script lol) out of context to try to “prove” someone’s intentions or state of mind, etc is an old tactic. If their intent is to represent Robson and Safechuck, then they need to educate themselves thoroughly in all of Michael’s music, song lyrics, films, etc. Otherwise, they are going to risk looking really stupid when they try to present such “evidence.”

        Also, the wild speculations on the purpose of Percocet-again, an attempt to build “evidence” where no real evidence exists.

        Even Steve Knopper wrote in his book about how badly confused the jury was by the introduction of all that straight pornographic material. It only weakened their case because, to borrow the quote: “It made MJ look like a heterosexual male.” Lol.

        1. I agree that those additions by (probably) Robson’s team are very telling about what they are doing. They are taking old prosecution or tabloid theories and information and they are building their story from those. It’s not the other way around. Why do you even need to theorize about such things that they are theorizing on this document about? Your client has a story, period. You should stick to that. But it’s like they are looking for things to add. I think the fact they released this document to RO in this form, carelessly leaving their notes on it, may backfire on them. It’s not a good look about how they build their story.

          Radar Online ran another article this week which was about MJ’s “secret closet” where he allegedly molested boys. Thing is, not one accuser claimed they were molested there. Until Safechuck now claims that. However, that closet has been a long running tabloid obsession. They have made insinuations about it forever, and lo and behold now Safechuck claims just what the tabloids have been fantasizing about for decades. Even though no other boy ever claimed anything about that “secret” closet. Again, it shows they are building their story from tabloids. And I am sure RO ran this story to lay the grounds for Safechuck’s story to make it sound “credible”.

          The story about the closet in Safechuck’s complaint is odd and sounds forced anyway. He claims he slept in MJ’s bed all the time and MJ molested him there, so why on Earth would MJ need to take him to the closet, lay a blanket on the floor and molest him there? Doesn’t make any sense. It just sounds like they were trying to force the closet (a long time tabloid myth) into their story, so that they can find “support” in the old tabloid stories. This is how they created all of their bogus story.

    2. He bought the book right about the time it came out. It’s possible he hadn’t kept it, but he definitely bought it. My point was that it was very typical of the kind of books he owned that featured sadomasochism.

      1. BTW, regarding that book (Madonna’s Sex), I once read an extract from it in which Madonna describes having sex with an underage boy. It’s pretty creepy. But no one ever accused Madonna of being a pedophile. Is that because she is a woman? Or is that because people think the story is not real she just wanted to shock? (Even if it is just a sex fantasy, does it make it right?) I have no idea. It just reminds me of the double standards. MJ constantly has to defend legal art books that are not sexual, while Madonna is getting a pass for actually describing sex with an underage boy.

        1. Probably partly because the book is fantasy, and also because there isn’t nearly as much stigma about older women and younger boys (mind you, I am talking the age range of late teens, obviously, not children). I think it is something people have become more conscious of in recent years. Just as in the 60’s and 70’s it was much more acceptable for male rock stars to sing about underage groupies-now such lyrics would probably invite severe condemnation, but back then we thought nothing of it, really. I guess most importantly, Madonna has never been publicly accused of molesting a minor. Obviously, such an accusation (whether warranted or not) changes the context of everything, including how one’s artistic work is viewed/interpreted (as we have seen some albeit lame such attempts made with Michael’s work). But, yes, there is still very much a sexual double standard in regard to these things. Madonna can express such fantasies and it is considered “empowering.” For a male artist, it would simply be considered disgusting and perverted.

  4. Thanks very much for the information, Raven.
    I stayed away from the latest media pervertion,it is so exhausting and we already know what to expect. Perfect that the photographer swiftly debunked the lies.
    (Although I personally do not appreciate using children in shock art and do not like it related to Michael). But I hope this has a followup against the media that caused this.

    What I do not understand is that we can put a price on the monetary image of deceased celebrities, it can be exploited, over- or undervaluated ,it is an asset to his estate, can be protected as such and you can be sued if you illegally make money out of it.
    But his good name and integrity are up for grabs and there is no law against it.
    The executors valued Michaels image at less than $ 2500, claiming that it was so tarnished because of the allegations. The consequence of this line of thinking imo is that the recent allegations in the media, which are proven false and publically denounced by the executors, can also have a damaging effect on the value of his image and instigate further devalu-ation.
    How come they are not holding anyone accountable for punitive damages to MJE assets ? Gawker went bankrupt because Hulk Hogan won them $115 million in damages, of which $55 million for economic injuries and $60 million for emotional distress, over an EXISTING sextape that was put out without his permission.
    How come the executors who are very agressive when it comes to illegal exploitation of Michaels image for merchandise, do not follow suit if ( by their own assertion )it is so heavily affected by proven false(= NON EXISTING) allegations in the media, with the sole intention to damage him?
    If the photographer who was not even the target of the media garbage can make a big deal about his work taken out of context, how come the managers of the man who is the real target suffice with a generic statement?

    I have more to say about the subject of ‘defending” Michael and will another day.
    Today I just miss him, especially the excitement that went with news about him and it feels a bit melancholic. But I am mostly grateful and still full of admiration for what one man in one lifetime gave to so many of us.
    His music is on the radio all day and it brings a cheerfull weekend feeling in the house. My aunt always calls me when there is MJ news and she ‘informed’me that tonight there will be an MJ night on tv” with never before seen footage”. It is also a little hint to come visit her and watch together. So I might join her and in the spirit of Michael make an old fan happy.
    And wow, just now my local radiostation is anouncing that Michael is trending. Let us celebrate!

    1. I have thought the same thing about why the estate is so aggressive over use of his likeness for profit, etc but not in protecting the legacy of the brand. I agree-allow the legacy to be tarnished, and the value of the brand is meaningless. A trashy tabloid story here and there doesn’t necessarily hurt in the grander scheme of things because most such stories do tend to sink rather quickly and most people don’t really take them seriously anyway, but a deliberate smear campaign such as what is being waged now can certainly have an impact.

      I always have the well meaning friends and relatives who will call me up to say, “There’s a show about Michael on such and such channel” or to relate some news item they have seen. Lol. Usually it’s something I’m either already well familiar with or something I probably wouldn’t care to watch anyway (I keep telling them, there are no “scoops” you can possibly give to me when it comes to Michael lol) but I know they mean well and it’s sweet they do it. And yes, it’s fun watching his videos and concerts with family. I love watching the kids have fun dancing to his music!

  5. To my mind no coincidence that tonight ReelzChannel is again (and has been all week) inundating its programming with MJ Life and Legacy, Fame and Scandal and the “autopsy” program. The “Scandal” episode features the guy named “Dylan” (last name escapes me) who used to run RadarOnLine, stating Michael was the “most epic of drug users”. Radar has printed what I believe is new today, that the entire Jackson family is in a state of denial of everything. I believe the family would be within their rights (they are alive) to sue this tabloid and put it out of business once and for all as they, themselves, have now become targets of lies and false accusations. I do see the footprints of WR, JS and their attorneys all over this with perhaps assistance from a certain Jackson family “insider” who, all evidence to the contrary, still considers himself a journalist.

  6. Raven, it’s been a long week! Arguably the worst week since the death of MJ! There are some important items I want to share with you, for you to either add to this post or use in a future post:

    I have been tweeting nonstop all this week regarding the various lies of Radar Online. All of the tweets are “threaded”, meaning that when you open one tweet in the thread, you can scroll up and down to see the entire thread of tweets together, instead of scrolling through my timeline.

    The thread begins with me dubunking one of Radar’s other lies this week, stating that MJ had a “secret sex closet”, which even Diane Dimond confirmed was a fur closet used by the PREVIOUS owner of Sycamore Valley Ranch! I included the video of her saying this in my thread. Start here: https://twitter.com/sanemjfan/status/746166951295102978

    Also, I tweeted this article from artist Jonathan Hobin, who created the JonBonet Ramsey lookalike photo in 2008, and published in 2010! Radar Online copied it into their PDF of the Police Report in order to insinuate that it was found at Neverland! How could MJ own it IF IT DIDN’T EVEN EXIST IN 2003??!! Hobin is very upset that his art is being misrepresented, and I hope he sues! Here’s an article about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

    And here’s what he tweeted: https://twitter.com/JonathanHobin/status/746773091758522368

    And here’s what he posted on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BG_StlYQ5w4/

    (You can embed Tweets and Instagram posts into your post, BTW. Press the button with 3 dots, select “Embed”, and copy the link.)

    Stacy Brown released his trash today on the Page Six website, and I thoroughly rebutted it in my thread. If there is anything I tweeted that you want to include in this or future posts, feel free to do so. You can embed my tweets, too, if you like. (But not the whole thread, which is well over 1,000 tweets long by now!) Obviously, most of the rebuttals I tweeted is information that you already know, but I learned the hard way this week just how unknowledgeable many fans are regarding the allegations, so I was very busy this week educating them.

    Barbara Kaufmen wrote this post about the true meaning of the “Boys Will Be Boys” book found at Neverland: http://www.innermichael.com/2016/06/michael-jacksons-child-porn/

    And here’s Helena’s first post of many regarding Radar’s lies: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/radar-onlines-fake-to-mark-the-seventh-anniversary-of-michael-jacksons-death/

    Another important talking point to include in your articles is the fact that “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” was entered into the Library of Congress! https://lccn.loc.gov/65000007 Here’s an archived newspaper article about it: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D55fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zzEMAAAAIBAJ&dq=book-horizons&pg=4397,1755348&hl=en

    I’ll give you more info as it comes along! Thanks!

    1. Thanks, David. I added the update on Jonathan Hobin and his photo late Friday. I plan to address some of these other issues in upcoming posts, but I appreciate having the links for any readers who want to get a jump start on this info.

      I’m glad Helena is covering this mess, also!

  7. Great article, Raven ! You have done what most of “journalists” (“copying-and-pasting employees” is a more accurate term) haven’t been capable of doing: researching and analyzing the whole situation/case.
    Thank you !

  8. Red Hot Chilli Peppers in the book “Underworld”: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/underworldkellyklein08.jpg

    Aerosmith using a pic from Gynoids as an album cover (or at least a very similar pic by the same artist): http://cdn.konbini.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/4/files/2014/06/Aerosmith-Just-Push-Play.jpg

    Pamela Anderson in the book The Chop Suey Club: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/chop05.jpg

    The Amazon review of the book also mentions other celebrities in connection with the book: “Besides the photographs the book contains brief texts by Walt Whitman, Robert Frost, T.E. Lawrence, Shel Silverstein and Bruce Springsteen.”

    BTW, the photographer of that book, Bruce Weber is a renowned photographer who worked with virtually every celebrity. He did the L’Uomo Vogue photoshoot of MJ in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcO2eCZYDN8

    He wrote this at the time in L’Uomo Vogue:

    “I first met Michael Jackson in the late 70s. Andy Warhol asked me to photograph a group of kids called the Jackson Five for Interview Magazine”
    They were staying with their tutor while on tour at a hotel in mid-town New York City. Their tutor was an elegant lady – almost like a character out of a George Cukor’s film, The Women. When I started taking the photographs, Michael and his brothers were having a pillow fight, and she was trying to make them behave like gentleman. Michael wasn’t posing; he was only interested in reading the newspaper and looking for his reviews.
    That was almost 30 years ago, and since then I’ve had the chance to know his charming sister Janet and shared good friends like Muhammad Ali’s manager Bernie Yuman, the film director Brett Ratner and a lady who is beyond description, Elizabeth Taylor.

    For years Michael and I have talked about taking photographs, but it never happened again until now, because our busy lives kept us at different ends of the globe. Luckily this time, we both found ourselves in New York City at the same time. I wanted to photograph Micheal instead of sending him a thank you note explaining all the joys I’ve had listening to him sing and watching him dance. Each of these times were marked as celebration in my crazy life: falling in love, driving my dream car, getting a new dog, photographing my family, or hanging out with a friend over a few beers. If I had to count how many times Michael’s music has given a life to my photographs, that number would be in thousands. Because of the music’s rhythm and soul, I would end up taking so many photographs that I would run out of film and all my cameras would break down.

    So Michael, accept my gratitude for you have a big place in a lot of people’s hearts. As they say on the street “Michael’s in the house and lets just do it!” – “Lets just get down and take some pictures and see if we land once again on the moon.”

    Bruce Weber
    New York City
    2007 ”

    He also directed music videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnvFOaBoieE

    1. These artists need to take a mass stand against RO and other media outlets that are referring to their art as “pornography.” This is libeling them as well and many of them are alive to do something about it.

  9. The whole circus reminds me of the hoopla created about Nirvana’s Nevermind album cover and what Kurt Cobain said about it:

    “The Nevermind album cover shows a naked baby boy, alone underwater with a US dollar bill on a fishhook just out of his reach. According to Cobain, he conceived the idea while watching a television program on water births with Grohl. Cobain mentioned it to Geffen’s art director Robert Fisher. Fisher found some stock footage of underwater births but they were too graphic for the record company. Also, the stock house that controlled the photo of a swimming baby that they subsequently settled on wanted $7,500 a year for its use, so instead Fisher sent a photographer to a pool for babies to take pictures. Five shots resulted and the band settled on the image of a four-month-old infant named Spencer Elden, the son of the photographer’s friend. However, there was some concern because Elden’s circumcised penis was visible in the image. Geffen prepared an alternate cover without the penis, as they were afraid that it would offend people, but relented when Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say, “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.”[31]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Packaging

    1. It is interesting especially when we consider that the kind of art work that has constituted much album cover art through the years is exactly the sort of thing we are talking about. I know at least one of the photos in the Room To Play book appears to have been directly inspired by Led Zeppelin’s Houses of the Holy album cover (I’ll be addressing that later).

  10. Thank you Raven for doing this heavy lifting for us. I wonder if you can say more about the links between Radar Online and the attorneys for R/S. It sounded like the founding editor of RO was friends with them? Business partners? Does anyone know about this?

    Also, does anyone know who owns RO now, or how to find out?

  11. We have found links between Diane Dimond, Gutierrez, Sneddon, Chandler on the first charges in 1993. Michael won the case against Gutierrez and Dimond, Dimond was saved by Sneddon. But Sneddon and Dimond continued to harass Michael. Dimond has never accepted the testimony of Toronto is false, it broadcast the video on his show. Each time the evidence is false ..

    1. Gutierrez is where most of it really begins. I wrote about the case that Michael brought against Gutierrez and Diane Dimond in November of 2014. Hopefully this link still works:http://www.allforloveblog.com/?m=201411 (Some of the links to my older pieces are not currently working due to an update on the site that was done recently, but if the link doesn’t work, it can be found in the November 2014 archives).

      BTW I ranted quite a bit in that piece about Alan Duke’s defection to Radar Online but he has since moved on, so I’ve heard, and is no longer affiliated with them.

  12. Raven, you should definitely, DEFINITELY include this in your next post! I was amazed by the level of passion he displayed while annihilating all of the allegations! Very impressive! He called for the media outlets who reported it to issue a RETRACTION! (Which we all know won’t happen, unfortunately.)

    And I’m happy to see that all of our hard work isn’t in vain. He cited MANY MJ websites and blogs in his video, including Mesereau’s Sept. 2010 speech at the Frozen In Time seminar, which I purchased, transcribed, and gave the video to others so it could be uploaded to Youtube. There were a few VERY MINOR errors that only MJ experts like us would know (e.g. facts that he could have included but didn’t, a very slight inaccuracy here and there, etc.), but overall it was a stupendous video! At the end of such a long and horrible week, things are FINALLY looking up!

    1. I’ve added these to Part 2. I will try to add everything else as as I can to subsequent posts. Since this topic is so timely, I’m trying to update as I can on the days I am not working, so rather than one really long post (which can take me days or weeks to do) I’m concentrating on a series of shorter posts on my off days that will rebut the lies and discuss the most relevant items of the police report in their proper context in as timely a manner as possible. There is a lot of stuff developing right now, but I’ll try to include everything as I can.

  13. Raven, the name of the book that contains the photo that Radar Online photoshopped is Bidgood, a homo-erotic art book. http://www.booktopia.com.au/james-bidgood-bruce-benderson/prod9783836514521.html (Scroll down to the “Take a look” section to see the original photo.) The 25th edition was released in 2009, and it’s POSSIBLE that MJ owned the original edition, but there are two questions we must answer:

    1. Did MJ own the book in the first place? It’s possible, but we’ll have to look at Sneddon’s list of books that were seized at Neverland. It’s very plausible that MJ didn’t own this book, and Radar just inserted that photo in there because of it’s inflammatory value!

    2. If MJ did own the book, did the original version that he owned have that photo in it? It’s possible that the photo wasn’t included in the original edition, but could have been added to the 25th anniversary edition. Unless we can get our hands on a copy of the original, we’ll probaby never know.

    But even IF MJ owned that book, and even IF that photo was in the original version of the book (and thus included in the seized books at Neverland), Radar nevertheless photoshopped the photo to make it appear that the men were nude, when they clearly were not!

    Here are some more links about the books:

    http://www.homohistory.com/2014/10/james-bidgood.html

    https://www.amazon.com/James-Bidgood-Bruce-Benderson/dp/3836514524 (Amazon’s 25th annivesary edition was released in Nov. 2014 in hardcover, but their paperback edition is from Dec. 1999. I couldn’t find the original publication date, but I assume it was published first in 1984.)

    https://www.beaglierbooks.com.au/products/315/James-Bidgood-Taschens-25th-Anniversary-Special-Edition

    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/james-bidgood-bruce-benderson/1101348828/2674073201657?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP2782&k_clickid=3×2782

    Bidgood recently started an online campaign for donations for a new camera and materials. In this video, he includes several art curators, museum directors, and a museum president. They all confirm that the book is ART, not porn. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-james-bidgood-make-his-art#/

    Here’s the list of items seized from Neverland: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view

    Hope this helps!

    1. I will add this info both to Part 1 where I discuss the photo, and in the post where I’ll get into more detail about the Bidgood book.

      I’ve been analyzing all of this info from at least three angles-what was in the original report from the raid vs. what was in the “original” report issued by Radar Online vs-yes, this gets exhausting!-the “faked” insertions from Radar Online. It is tedious work, but that’s what it takes to get the truth out.

    2. @ SaneMJfan

      MJ did own the book Bidgood. And I don’t think we need to get defensive about such things at all. It’s not illegal to own such a book. And just because it was created by a gay artist and considered “homoerotic art” it also doesn’t mean MJ was gay, if that’s why you try to imply it was planted. No it wasn’t.

      But people always seem to ignore the context in which these books were found. He had thousands if not ten thousands of art books. Of all kinds. It’s only natural that among those you will have ones with nudity and some perhaps by gay artists. Especially with MJ’s habit of reading everything. Think about it: out of those 10,000 books the prosecution took around 17-20 that they thought they could use. The majority of those had nude adults in them – some male, some female, some both. How are you going to conclude someone’s sexuality from that mixed bag? His interest did not seem to be a concentrated focus on nude males. His interest seemed to be simply in art photography of any kind. Some of these books were created by gay artists, but that doesn’t mean they are only of interest to gay people. These are art books with artistic visions that can be interesting to anyone who has an interest in art photography – like MJ did. James Bidgood for example, was amazingly creative:

      “James Bidgood is an American artist living and working in New York City. His artistic output has embraced a number of media and disciplines, including music, set and window design, and drag performance. In time his interests led him to photography and film and it is for this work that he is most widely known. Highly recognizable, his photographs are distinguished by an aesthetic of high fantasy and camp. His work which was inspired by an early interest in Florenz Ziegfeld, Folies Bergere, and George Quaintance has, in turn, served as important inspiration for a slew of artists including Pierre et Gilles and David LaChapelle. In the late 1950s Bidgood attended Parsons The New School for Design. Bidgood directed the 1971 film Pink Narcissus, a dialogue-free fantasy centered around a young and often naked man. The film took seven years to make, and Bidgood built all the sets and filmed the entire piece in his tiny apartment. He later removed his name from the film because he felt editors had changed his original vision. Consequently, the film bore the word “Anonymous” for the director’s credit, and it was misattributed to other directors such as Andy Warhol for many years. Pink Narcissus was re-released in 2003 by Strand Releasing.”

      The problem is that the prosecution and the media took these books out of their bigger context of a huge art book collection and of the context of MJ’s general interest in art photography which I addressed in the comment section under Part 3 of this series.

      1. I think what sanemjfan was referring to is that we don’t know if the photo in question that was photoshopped by Radar Online was in the original edition (that MJ owned) or only in the 2009 re-edition.

        The prosecution obviously tried to isolate a few books out of Michael’s library of thousands of titles that they felt could somehow “prove” a predilection for males. I agree there is no way any sort of conclusion can be reached about sexual preferences from these titles. That is just ridiculous if anyone thinks so. Michael was interested in many subjects, especially art, photography, and all aspects of the human body (I think it was LaToya who said at one point he even kept a human brain for study, which doesn’t surprise me; Michael had an insatiable curiosity about everything). You are right; that context is very important to understand because otherwise, I’m sure there may be people who will wonder and think, okay, even if these books were not pornography, they still seem very bizarre. But again, if we understand just how extensive his collection of art and photography books was, it makes a lot more sense how these titles were simply a part of that massive collection.

    1. The timing of it all is certainly interesting, isn’t it? However, while I certainly have been critical of the decision to sell the catalog, I believe the blame for the current media smear campaign rests squarely with Robson and Safechuck’s attorneys, working together through Radar Online. However, that isn’t letting Sony off the hook as I don’t much put past them. If there IS a positive in all of this, it is how it has managed to bring together almost all factions of the fan base because we have all been universally united against this smear campaign. On the down side, could it be yet another “divide and conquer” tactic? Whatever the case, this was the issue that had rocked the fan community before all of this other crap hit the fan, and we certainly should not allow it to drop off the radar just because all of this other stuff is going on.

Leave a Reply