Wade Robson: What the Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 5

Were Michael's Relationships With Children Misunderstood...or Misinterpreted By Dirty Minds?
Were Michael’s Relationships With Children Misunderstood…or Misinterpreted By Dirty Minds?

In Part 4. I had established that the effort to somehow pin the pedophile label on Michael-and to perhaps incite some sort of criminal/extortion charge against him as a result- actually had its roots much earlier than the Chandler case. It’s important to understand that what happened in the Chandler case was actually an effect of this effort, not a cause.

The star players in this early effort were names that have all recently come to light again, conveniently just as Wade Robson’s allegations were making their splash. In addition to Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA associate who was conducting his own obsessed campaign during this time to “prove” Michael as “one of us” there was also a set of disgruntled ex-employees-the LeMarques, the Quindoys, and a bit later, Blanca Francia and those who comprised The Neverland 5, a group of employees who claimed they were wrongfully terminated because of what they knew-Ralph Chacon,  Kassim Abdool, Melanie Bagnall, Sandy Domz, and Adrian MacManus. All of these employees had serious credibility issues, and reasons for their termination that were much more logical (and damning) than what they claimed to know. Now, throw into that mix an ambitious tabloid reporter and an ex-porn star turned PI, and you have the perfect recipe. Whatever suspicions you may think you have regarding Michael Jackson’s “conduct” with children, almost all of them can be traced in some form or another to these individuals (with later players like the Chandlers, Arvizos, Tom Sneddon, and now Wade Robson being mere offshoots). And their seeds were being planted as early as 1989, when Phillip and Stella Lemarque went to work at Neverland.

This raises an interesting question, especially since it was about this time that Victor Gutierrez had really begun in earnest to pursue his own “investigation.” Throughout the years, Michael’s Neverland Ranch had a revolving door of employees, totaling, no doubt, in the hundreds. It took many hands, after all, to keep such a place running efficiently. Of those hundreds, only a small handful of highly questionable individuals have ever come forward to smear their boss’s name, and they are the same ones whose names appear over and over in any scandalous or dirty story about the “secrets of Neverland” or whatever salacious headline is being used. Many of these have also conveniently found themselves a new shot at fame-and infamy-since Wade Robson’s allegations broke. Already many of these same ex-employees have gotten a second wind at fame, and a new chance at recycling their same old lies to the media.

Adrian MacManus, enjoying her second shot at fame, and selling her BS story to a gullible public
Adrian MacManus, enjoying her second shot at fame, and selling her BS story to a gullible public

Adrian MacManus, in particular, seems to be gloating over her second shot in the limelight.

https://twitter.com/ADRIANMCMANUS2

Were these people genuine employees, or hired plants? Before you are quick to dismiss this idea as fan paranoia, consider that tabloids like The National Enquirer have made it an open secret for years that they are willing to pay top dollar to employees who will rat out their celebrity bosses.

enquiring minds

This practice, in turn, has led to an entire business of “posers” who go to work for celebrities with no intentions other than to sell them out for a price. And, no doubt, these stories can be exaggerated or even downright fabricated in some instances. It’s not as if the tabloids are going to invest too much effort into fact checking a story. As long as they can cloak a story with the ever-convenient tag of, “An inside source claims” they are pretty much covered.

As to whether people like the LeMarqueses and the Quindoys were real employees who simply turned coat after the fact, or were plants from the beginning, I can’t say. But for sure, it’s a possibility worth keeping in mind. Even if they were plants, it would be hard to say if they were merely grifters looking for a tabloid payout down the road, or a part of something far more sinister-a concentrated and organized plan to frame Michael Jackson as a pedophile and sex offender.

The causal chain of how all of these events and names came together, as well as the cast of players, is indeed fascinating stuff, and was explained in explicit detail in this Frontline documentary from Richard Ben Cramer. I cannot embed the video here, but if you have never seen it, it is worth clicking this link and watching it in its entirety:

http://mjtruthnow.com/2010/01/frontline-report-exposes-media-scandal/

Whether you are resuming reading this post after clicking on this video, or saving it for later, I want you to note what Gary Morgan and Kevin Smith of “Splash News” have to say beginning at around 24:28.

“After the frenzy at the beginning the police and Jackson’s people successfully plugged all leaks – there was nothing more coming out.  Jackson’s people were starting to win in a propaganda war, holding conferences, coming out with the tapes. But the public was still curious – What was going on? So what we were looking for was a buy-up. That’s what you want. You want graphic inside details what it was like at the ranch, how he behaves with children..”

The Quidoys on Geraldo
The Quindoys on Geraldo

Something interesting emerges here about the Quindoys, the Manilia couple who demanded as much as $900,000 to spill their “secrets” about Michael’s relationships with children at Neverland Ranch. It turns out, they had a previous “tell all” contract with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, for the sum of $25,000. But this contract pre-dated the Chandler scandal. At that time, the most “shocking” or scandalous thing the Quidoys had to say about Michael Jackson was that he had “speakers in his hibiscus plants that played Beethoven’s Fifth” and didn’t get up before midday. In other words, it was, as stated here, little more than an upbeat expose on “the inside, wacky world of Michael Jackson.” There was no mention whatsoever of any of the supposed criminal acts that they later were all too willing to admit only after the Chandler allegations, and only after they thought their story would generate much more than a mere quarter of a million. It was only then that the Quindoys came forth, holding a press conference featuring a diary which they claimed to have kept during their employment. In the diary, they claimed to have witnessed such offenses as Michael kissing boys while lewdly rubbing their bodies. But even if we presume any grain of truth to their accusations, it would mean that they sat on this information for years, refusing to come forth to authorities, and only talking when the price was right. And this is a pattern that we see repeated, over and over.

“A lot of people who claimed to have witnessed Jackson doing this, they were not going to the police first. Their main interest was money. They’d come to journalists who could give them money. So in that circumstance journalists know more about what happened than the police do”.-Kevin Smith, Splash News

While it doesn’t exactly exonerate Michael when we question why employees who claimed to witness such acts turned a blind eye and went to tabloids rather than the police, it sure as heck doesn’t do anything for the credibility of their alleged stories. I have heard all of the excuses that his detractors like to give. They pretend to buy into these employees’ excuses that they were threatened and scared for their lives (but let’s stress again, they were never too afraid to go to the tabloids. Well, I suppose it is true that figures upward of half a million dollars should be able to buy a lot of security!).

Michael’s Opulent Lifestyle Also Meant Being Dependent On Many Employees…Not All Of Whom Had His Best Interests At Herat

It could also be plausible that an unethical employee, concerned for their own job security, might turn a blind eye to a good many things in order to keep their paycheck coming. I could buy this before I would buy that these people were really scared for their safety. But honestly, if such acts were really going on right under employees’ noses, it would stand to figure that many more would have come forth through the years. It’s also plausible that at least one or two would have been ethical enough to go to the police first, rather than straight to the tabloids.

There had been other efforts, prior to the Chandler allegations, of employees attempting to get a windfall at Michael’s expense. But these had all been for far more innocuous incidents-relatively speaking, that is, as far as celebrity lifestyles go. Perhaps the most notorious had been the alleged jacuzzi photos, when Neverland employees had attempted to sell photos purporting to be of Michael and two naked girls romping in a jacuzzi (it was claimed that one of the photos showed him touching one of the women’s breasts).  Those employees had asked for 60,000 pounds, but News of the World never published the photos because Michael threatened to sue. (It’s interesting that Michael never denied that the incident took place, however; only that he didn’t want those photos published!).

http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jackson-neverland-jacuzzi-photos/

One Of Michael's Neverland Jacuzzis.
One Of Michael’s Neverland Jacuzzis.

Perhaps if Michael had only known what was to come, he wouldn’t have been so quick to squelch such evidence. The damage to his “squeaky, clean image” might have been a small price to pay for stemming the tide of what was to come later. Michael didn’t want the image of being just another pop star horn dog. However, it was partly this exact sort of recalcitrant attitude towards what most considered “normal” pop star behavior that led to his problems. As I have established in previous posts, it was largely the public perception of Michael Jackson’s sexuality-fueled in no small part by his own image making machine-that led so many to automatically assume his guilt. It wasn’t fair, perhaps, and still isn’t. But it’s human nature at work. “I’m not like other guys”-the line that had been so cute when he delivered it in Thriller-had taken on a somewhat more sinister connotation by 1993.

But to get back to the topic at hand, the point is that by the early 1990’s, “selling out” Michael Jackson for a price was already big business. The question is: How did it go from tales of naked girls in jacuzzis, to hands down a little boy’s {ahem- Macauley Culkin’s)-pants? And what was the motivation for this suddenly perverse twist of stories?

Well, one thing we do know from court testimony-as well as the book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, is that there was a connection between these employees and Victor Gutierrez. The Vindicating Michael site did a very detailed post on that very topic in June of 2011:

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/the-neverland-five-and-their-victor-gutierrez-inspiration/

From there, I will reprint this brief court testimony transcript from 2005 between Tom Mesereau and Ralph Chacon. At the time, Chacon was being cross-examined regarding the judgement made against him for having stolen $25,000 worth of property from Michael Jackson:

Q. Who was Sandy Domz?

A. She was one of the secretaries at Neverland

Ranch.

Q. Okay. Do you recall Sandy Domz ever 5229

approaching a tabloid?

A. No, sir.

Q. Don’t know anything about it?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

author named Gutierrez?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

book author named Gutierrez?

A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

the date or the time.

The fact that there is an established connection between Gutierrez and these employees is at least enough to raise a lot of suspicion. We know that, as early as 1991 (around the same time as Bill Wyman’s infamous observation in his hit piece “I Want Me Back: The Education of Michael Jackson” that Michael had “intense” relationships with “nine-year-old boys”) Phillip and Stella LeMarque had first attempted to sell their story to the tabloids. At the time, they had just been fired by Michael’s aide Norma Staikos. Shortly thereafter, Phillip LeMarque had attempted to go into business, opening an Encino restaurant he called Bourbon Street, but was soon bankrupt to the tune of almost $500,000. Not coincidentally, it was during this time that he began trying to peddle his story of witnessing Michael molesting Macauley Culkin. As has been famously reported, their story went from allegedly seeing Michael’s hands outside of the boy’s pants to inside the pants as the amount of money offered for their story increased from $100,000 to $500,000.

In a well known Smoking Gun piece from 2005, much of Phillip LeMarques’s past-as well as many questionable stains upon his own character-were revealed.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-das-sleazy-witness

Phillip LeMarque
Phillip LeMarque

It was a rare turn for the media at the time to take such a pot shot at a DA witness, which perhaps says all that needs to be said about just how sleazy LeMarque was, and just how much credibility he lacked as a witness. (It also shows just how desperate the DA was for credible witnesses).

Of course, Michael Jackson detractors will say that this is the worst kind of ad hominem attack, and in a way, they are right. Phillip LeMarques’s own character, and his own background as a porn entrepreneur, should have no bearing on what he claimed he and his wife saw-if, in fact, they saw anything at all. But that is the real question, and in a case where we only have one person’s word against another, we do have to at least consider the credibility of the witness making the claim.

As has been stated often enough, the fact that none of these so-called witnesses went to the authorities, and instead brandied and bargained these stories about to the tabloids for over two years, in the end did irreparable damage to any credibility their stories might have had.

What was really happening? Were these employees really witnessing lewd acts, or totally fabricating them? I actually have a theory that what at least some of them were witnessing-or claiming to witness-was a truth somewhere in the middle, which could have possibly laid the groundwork for a suspicious (and greedy) mind to construe more than met the eye. I will try to explain in a way that makes sense.

We all know that Michael was a very affectionate person by nature, someone who loved to give hugs and was never shy about displays of affection. He especially felt this was important with children, and stated so many times, due to the lack of affection he had felt so keenly in his own childhood. Michael was a firm believer that children have to be shown that they are loved. We can often see in his videos and interactions with children (those that were recorded) that he can often be seen hugging and kissing children of both sexes, tousling their hair, teasing them affectionately, and other such gestures.

But Michael, I believe firmly, was also a bit OCD. And I say this with the utmost realization that I am always one of those who cautions against the tendency to psychoanalyze or “diagnose” Michael. However, having observed as much footage of him as I have, I have gotten a pretty good feel for his body language, his baseline mannerisms (as well as how they changed over time) and patterns of behavior. To me, Michael displayed more than a few OCD patterns that I am very familiar with, and one is a tendency toward certain repetitive behaviors. For example, a lot of people might kiss a child on the cheek once. But Michael, when in the company of a child he felt very affectionate towards, might be inclined to repeat the gesture numerous times (whether from compulsion, or a sense of insecurity, or just wanting to ensure that the message got across). A good example of what I’m talking about can be seen in this video from the Black or White set, where Michael is posing and cutting up informally with Sage, the little Native American girl in the video.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9U44IBo7Z4[/tube]

We can see that Michael kisses her several times. Part of this, of course, is because they were shooting publicity stills. Michael, ever the image conscious showman, is aware they are being filmed, and wants to make sure the camera captures “just the right moment.” In a way, it’s a kind of rehearsal. But also, some have noted, it is a bit excessive, and Sage at one point appears clearly either uncomfortable, or is perhaps just a bit shy about all of the attention. (For the record, Sage has never had anything but wonderful things to say about her experience of working with Michael Jackson on this video). It is also very clear from the video that, even though she might have been a little shy about all of the hugs and kisses, she is nevertheless very comfortable in his presence, as they converse and talk. I, myself, can remember being very shy around grown-ups at that age, and I never especially liked “kissy” types like my paternal grandmother (bless her soul). I would be one of those kids who would go “ick” and immediatly try to wash my face!

Point being, some kids are really comfortable and okay with displays of affection from adults, and some are not. For Michael, such displays were a natural part of his being-they came from a genuinely loving spirit-but I think he may have possibly had some OCD tendencies that made his gestures seem excessive to some. For example, even some of the comments I have seen regarding this clip with Sage are perfect examples of people misinterpreting Michael’s actions.

From something like this, it becomes easier to see how some of those exaggerated tales of “head licking” and such (courtesy of Bob Jones) may have emerged. As simple a gesture as a kiss to the top of a child’s head could easily be misconstrued by a dirty and suspicious mind into something more (and especially if such gesture is repeated many times in quick succession, as Michael was prone to do-honestly, I don’t think he was even always conscious of these repetitive actions!).

That is just a theory I have, of course, and I have no concrete evidence or proof that Michael was OCD. But having observed tons of footage of him, I believe there is at least some merit to the theory. And that this could, in fact, go far in explaining how some of these outrageous witness claims came to be.

I had said before that some of my views may be controversial, and I know not everyone will agree with me. But rather than simply calling everyone around Michael an outright greedy liar (even though many were just that!) it is also imperative that we look at some of Michael’s own behaviors-even if they were innocent behaviors!-that may have helped perpetuate some of these beliefs. I believe that Michael was misjudged a lot by the people around him; his intentions were misjudged a lot, and as early as 1991, there was already a dark and rising tide against him that he was somewhat helpless to stem. It would soon become a case of “damned if he does; damned if he doesn’t.”

 

More to come…

71 thoughts on “Wade Robson: What the Heck Is Really Going On?-Pt 5”

  1. Great post, Raven. I had never thought that some employees at Neverland were plants from the getgo–planning to make $$ on selling a story. It makes perfect sense. I believe there were something like 125 employees. To make a place like Neverland work, to be open to the many visitors and run the many rides and so forth, to take care of the animals, the grounds, the buildings, etc, it had to be a huge operation. This does leave one open to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous and deceitful employees–like Blanca Francia who stole items from Mj’s bedroom, including one of his drawings, and even wore his jackets! If I could, I would have told him that the people he had around him, esp. so close to his own living quarters, needed to be vetted and tested and checked and he should not assume that people are good and mean well. He was a softie and too good-hearted–but that’s why we love him. Neverland was such a noble and beautiful experiment and it was brought down and destroyed by marauders and scumbags who got in and then betrayed him.

    Over the years that he lived at Hayvenhurst and when he was on tour, obviously MJ got used to having people around him as staff to take care of things. He had to depend on them. I had a short experience like that once when I lived in a place where a maid for house-cleaning once or twice a week was the custom. I lived in 2 places where I had a maid. In one place, the maid was a great person and we became friends, but her cleaning left a lot to be desired (she came with the place so I couldn’t fire her). Later I had another apt. and the maid had been there for previous tenants and had a ‘take-over” attitude that really got on my nerves and I finally asked her to leave and from then on cleaned my own house and it was such a relief!! It was considered a way to help the local economy to hire helpers–a maid or gardener, etc. Some people had maids who robbed them, or they suspected that was going on, but usually the people were honest, and mine were for sure. However, in one case, a woman was actually murdered by her maid and the gardener when she caught the maid stealing twice. The first time she gave her another chance (mistake!).

    I can’t believe someone like Blanca Francia, who had been his personal maid at Hayvenhurst, would then betray him the way she did. So very sad. Interesting that she along with others were fired and then turned against him (like the Neverland 5). Were the Quindoys fired too? And the LeMarques? Looks like the dregs of humanity came out of the sewers to go after MJ. So sad.

    Re his kissing Sage–was he anxious about the shoot? He seems a bit nervous to me. I wonder what words were deleted?

    1. The LeMarques were fired (not directly by Michael, but by his aide; however, I would assume it was at his bequest). The Quindoys, from my understanding, left of their own accord. But it was because they claimed they were owed back pay (no mention of any disgust regarding immoral/illegal behavior).

      He does seem very anxious about the shoot in that video. This was why I was a little unsure if his actions here could be totally racked up to OCD, or if he was just trying to get the shot of them together to be “perfect.” However, I also believe his very well noted perfectionism (a quality that, in part, made him the great entertainer he was) could have well been a manifestation of OCD. In his case, he managed to make it work for him in some positive ways, which was to his credit. But it may also have played its role in a lot of his troubles, too, such as the inability to sleep (racing thoughts) and having some of his actions misconstrued by people only too anxious to sell him out.

  2. It is interesting that you would mention the OCD? obsessive compulsive disorder , because I think Karen faye refers to it in an email or something during her concern of This is It rehersals,,That she thought it was like right before he fainted in New York years ago., with the OCD.I thought she mentioned his obsessive disorder but I could be wrong.
    I dont watch tv much and it upsets me to see Adrian McManus trying to go back to the trough for more money and attn.
    If she got paid, his estate , should go after the money since Mj was awarded damages, and I dont believe she filed for bankruptcy like the others did..
    Forget the guy in the pictures nameJim Morin?) , I know he covered 2005 as well as Murray , and if she is out and about, talking to him these days , it is kinda interesting because Larry Nimmer interviewed him outside the Murray trial and he was extremely sympathetic to MJ, I was under the impression he felt MJ was an eccentric genius who recognized the fact that he was misunderstood.., and scrutinized
    I think he felt a great deal of sympathy for MJ , of course ,nobody believed we would be back to square one with these absurd accusations , and yet it gets the tabloids all geared up again.

    Now I suppose he has to interview her, but he saw her crash and burn during the trial
    As far as Adrian McManus,being a plant, according to Tom Mesereau , she had told other employees at Neverland , that the Chandler accusations were a load of cr@p, so I dont think she was a plant…although, I am sure Victor Guiterrez insinuations, and people dangling money in front of employees making , not much money, steered them into getting on board.like a domino effect for the Neverland 5.
    They admitted to making up some stories in their civil atty office , in order to get money to sue MJ with, for wrongful dismissal , and hopes of retiring..
    Blanca may have felt that jason was too close to MJ, but Jason liked to be around him.She didnt leave because of that or anything with the wade business.
    She quit because he wages were being attached , because she had stiffed a dept store , so she just left , rather than work it off.
    She and her friend decided to try and sell some stories , and was introduced to Diane Dimond offering what would have been what she would have made for a year , at Michael s..20 grand
    Next thing you know , Larry Feldman is at her door , telling her to tear up the contract she had with Hardcopy.because he needs a potential back up victim
    When she saw the windfall the Chandlers got, she put the screws to MJ also, even though it is clear in Jasons interview with police he was badgered into trying ot come up “With Something”.She did say , that Diane Dimond had lied to her, and taken her story and sold it to other outlets..
    To me , there is strength in numbers and the mob mentality was at work , because the press, was making money off it ,and covering for all these people ..the press were like a bunch of people in a riot that started looting..so these lairs were well covered up for by the media,

    This is imo what motivated Wade , to stir this garbage up.
    People lied about Mj and got their money , like J Chandler , who sits on 60 million dollars, while the estate passes Wade over because from what I understand , his child was sick and he didnt have a contract.
    His career has faltered , he has a family to support , and he is extremely bitter
    There could be more to it, like he wasnt capable of doing the job, but
    to dismiss someone , who had been loyal to MJ,given what he was defending him about, with an ego as big as Wades, was a mistake imo, because as we have seen , he had the potential power to damage their brand..I dont think he cares about his friend because he is dead, and I also think he doesnt care about MJ3 because the estate didnt seem that concerned about his sons needs.
    He obviously doesnt care about any of the jacksons because he seemed to have sprung this on a family, he, and his own family ,have known for years..And his mother and sister , went along ,with this,,
    The fact, that he didnt go to any of the Jacksons and tell him ,”his truth” when he has known them for years, and instead goes on a publicity campaign ,…..
    That in itself , makes me very suspicious ,it is like an assassination .
    I wonder if he was angry with the Jacksons for not intervening when he lost the Vegas jobs to Jamie King
    maybe they were busy concentrating on AEG, and he felt tossed aside.
    I certainly think his accusations are ridiculous, but damaging , never the less.
    AEG may enter into it also , but I think this is directed more at the estate lawyers and making sure they realize he is a force to be reckoned with
    Sorry to get off topic..
    You could be right about some of MJ behavior, calling people all the time, staying on the phone for hours, hugging and patting kids on the head,,There is a video of him as a teenager out there, and he is really into combing some babies hair.
    He was obsessive about his work ethic also..doing things over and over again in the studio..
    People thought it was being a perfectionist , but it could have been a compulsion, practicing dance moves for hours…..could be
    When I looked at Sage, I just saw someone who was happy to be around someone he felt comfortable with..I think he over identified with children, but it was never in anything but an above board manner.
    He just looked genuinely happy to be around her, but I suppose he did give her a few extra hugs :))

    1. The Chandlers did not get “60 million dollars”.

      MJ’s estate has no obligation to employ anyone, not even Wade Robson, whose career seems to have crashed and burned because of his own actions. As a father, Robson is responsible for his son’s needs, not MJ’s estate. At this point, we don’t know if Joy Robson is in on this unholy plot. She seems to have simply disappeared. The sense of entitlement on display is breath-taking – Robson thinks he’s entitled to stage an MJ show, he thinks he’s entitled to a chunk of MJ’s money, he thinks he’s entitled to fame and fortune, and on and on. Really, he makes me sick.

      1. I suspect Joy is supporting Wade in his decision. She may even believe he is telling the truth. I wouldn’t hold it too much against her if that’s the case. I don’t know what kind of mother wouldn’t support her own child. However, she is keeping silent and that is probably the best avenue for her. Unlike the other cases, this is the first time that an alleged “victim”-as an adult-is bringing his own accusations. In the other cases, it always came down to the parents who were pulling their children’s strings. In this case, Wade is acting of his own accord and it is none of his mother’s doing. So I don’t hold any of this against her; even if she supports her son, that is just human nature. I know in an ideal situation, we would love for her to come forward and say, “I don’t know what the hell has gotten into my son” but that’s probably not going to happen.

        I agree. Wade’s sense of entitlement is staggering. Michael’s estate isn’t responsible for every mistake or personal bad decision Michael made in his lifetime, and befriending this little, ungrateful lowlife from Down Under was one of his greatest mistakes.

        1. Why are you letting Joy Robson off the hook? If she believes her precious son was molested, she should be leading the charge, not skulking off and leaving her daughter Chantal to hold the bag. Obviously she doesn’t want to be asked any pointed questions, because if there’s anyone Wade should be suing it’s his mom.

          If Wade’s father was so afraid of child Wade being abused, why didn’t he just take him home to Australia where he could keep a closer eye on him?

          1. I don’t see whereas it is her place to “lead the charge.” Wade is a grown man. Chantal speaking out-on social media or otherwise-is her choice. Do we really want or need her two cents thrown into the mix?

    2. Nan, I think you may be confusing the amount of the Chandler settlement with the figure that Evan Chandler threatened to sue for in 1996, which was 60 million.

      I know I haven’t really addressed Wade in this post, even though the series is about his allegations. But it’s because I want readers-especially new readers who may not know much about the background history of allegations made against Michael-to understand where all of this madness started, and why. Only then can they get a grasp of what is happening now. But, no, any discussion related to Wade and anyone else’s involvement-whether it is AEG or anyone else-is certainly not off-topic here, so no worries.

      I do believe Michael had OCD. And, yes, as I stated in my reply to iutd, his well noted perfectionism was most likely a manifestation of it, albeit a positive one. He was probably never diagnosed; in fact, I doubt he would have ever owned up to it being a “problem.” Some people just learn to live with it, and their “tics” or “rituals” just become a part of their make-up (and usually just viewed as “eccentricities” by others). I know about OCD; I come from a family where about one out of every two of us is affected with it, so when I see Michael engaging in a lot of these repetitive (and, I believe, subconscious) behaviors, it looks very familiar to me.

      Here is another clip where I first began to notice that Michael was exhibiting typical OCD-like behavior. I know he is sitting under hot lights, but note he has a compulsion to keep continuously checking his makeup:

      http://youtu.be/UjoIDfsckYY

      1. Hi
        I know Jordan Chandler did not initially receive 60 million dollars , but according t Randall Sullivans book, he invested in Exxon and is currently worth 60 million dollars .so he has financial security thanks to his fathers accusations, and is quite an adept businessman himself.and seems untroubled by how he got his initial investment.
        People find a way to justify what they need to , it seems.
        While MJ estate has no obligation to employ anyone, it isnt a smart business move to antagonize someone who had not only been loyal to the person who estate they are taking care of , but could be capable of causing it damage, when put between a rock and a hard place.Which is what he is doing now.
        They can defend Michael, as they should , but it would have been better , not to have had this situation in the first place and I think it could have been avoidable, because imo, it stems from his perceived treatment , by the big players in MJ estate.Wade considered himself a big player also..I think ego is also involved.
        NONE of MJ accusers , as well as others ,that had sued him for ridiculous stuff,had the right to think he was obligated in any way to keep them in his life , or take care of them for life, and yet , it happened any way, or took his time defending himself in civil trials , and caused him immense grief.
        Im sure they didnt think that if Wade was angry about being canned,he would go this far..but if I was them , knowing how people had turned on MJ when they saw someone else collecting,and knowing how much financial security Jordans lies ending up giving him , while Wade , who could have done the same thing , and probably been in Jordans current financial situation, had he lied,… instead, told the truth, for a good twenty years,, , and ends up ,in dire straights , I would have thought they would have had the foresight ,to keep on good terms with this man.
        I know lawyers arent known for warm and fuzzy, but to me , it would just be common sense..Put a fire out , before it starts
        And if his child was sick, I would have hoped they would have shown the compassion , that MJ would have wanted , and found a way to resolve the situation , that would benefit all parties.
        It is my understanding that Joy quit the dot campaign about a year ago, and Chantal has said that she was informed of this a year ago also, so to me , they all sat on this , supposed knowledge ,until they were in the best position , to act on it , to put the Jacksons in a tough spot with their lawsuit, and the promotion of the show Wade lost out on.
        As far as the drawing of Elvis that was sold, that was Adrian McManus, not Blanca,
        I know that Mesereau said Blanca would take things from his room , and MJ saw her wearing his jacket ,and said she was cold, when she was probably stealing it, and she looked in someones purse to see how much they made, and was very possessive of MJ , but as I recall, her wages were attached and I thought that was her primary reason for leaving.She later said it was because of what she had seen..
        I will reread her testimony , when I get a chance.
        According to Doc Barney, and others , stealing was a common problem at MJ place, which is pretty sad.
        The thing when he was nervous and kept checking his makeup is interesting..
        And I think that you have a very good point about him not being able to sleep , because he is running things over and over in his head,,
        Seems he may have gone undiagnosed with this issue and people might have chalked it up tp being eccentric? or a perfectionist?
        As far as the Robsons go, Joy chased MJ down like a bill collector,imo, same as June ,which , I think is incredible , to push your way into a celebritys life like that.He didnt go looking for them , they went looking for him.
        I think they were preying on his kindness.
        I have read the Robsons testimony and although they were loyal, I think they really basked in MJ light, enjoying their own time with friends at his Neverland Ranch, and the connections and perks MJ could provide
        Seems that time , might have come to abrupt ending with his falling out with the estate
        On Wade youtube , you can see he and his wife used mj place to make videos and referred to it as :sacred land”..I dont think anyone who had a traumatic experience there would spend so much time there on their own or refer to it with such reverence.

        I just think he is broke and bitter and irrelevant and he isnt going away without causing grief..Reminds me of fatal attraction ” I refused to be ignored ” line, and he isnt going to go quietly.
        Someone showed me something he had written after he had an affair with Britney behind Justin Timberlakes back, and he said he didnt care if the publicity was bad publicity , as long as it was publicity , it was all good, word to that effect.

        1. Nan, where did you get information that the Estate “fired” Wade Robson? I hope you aren’t saying that Wade should have been rewarded with a high-paying position to keep him from lying about Michael Jackson. Forgive me, but that’s just crazy. Robson spent more time working with Britney Spears than he ever spent with Michael Jackson. (MJ never hired him to dance or choreograph.) Maybe he should go back to her and threaten to talk about their rumored sexual affair if he doesn’t get what he wants.

          Robson did well for himself for years. Surely he has health insurance for himself and his family. The man is not destitute. If his son was sick, it was his responsibility to provide for his care, not Michael Jackson. “If you can’t feed a baby, then don’t have a baby”. Michael knew and worked with hundreds of people in his career. None of them are entitled to his money just because he was very rich.

          Raven, maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see anything indicative of OCD in that video with Sage Galesi.

          1. Hi Lynette
            That could very well be , a figure , from Ray Chandler , because that is who Sullivan spoke to..
            As far as having boys sleep in his room , I remember reading somewhere , that MJ had told a little girl that she couldnt sleep alone in his room with him , because he didnt think it was appropriate for a young lady to be unchaperoned in a mans room, but that he was very sweet about it.That makes sense to me.

            It struck me , when I was watching the ICON video, the person that really helped MJ and his brothers succeed, was a guy named Bobby Driscoll?( I think).
            He had said when MJ was little , MJ moved into his hotel room for about a week to learn everything he could from him.
            That is a grown man and a kid sharing a room.
            That struck me as interesting, since no one thought anything of it..Given these were all struggling acts, I would imagine the accommodations weren’t great.Probably one bed…
            I just dont think he gave it a second thought, of a bunch of guys or boys hanging out together ..
            Raven..Let me just say, I do not recommend the book.I only bought it , because of Tom Mesereau asking people to..I would recommend you save your eyesight, instead.

            Simba, I am not saying the estate should negotiate with Wade Robson at all.Branca initially said that Wade child was sick and he didnt have a signed contract..After that Weitzman was in charge of talking/
            To me, that sounds like the relationship between the estate and Wade ended on bad terms.
            Given , what we have seen happen , in the past , where people would turn on MJ, because there is so much money and fame involved, …if I was running his estate , I would always imagine the absolute worst case scenario , of what people are willing to do , or say,in return , for what they want
            Wade Robson is someone , I would have made an effort to stay on good terms with, because , as we all have seen..he is capable of trying to do damage to Michael and his children as well as his estate..and getting attn
            I dont think anyone is going to condemn Britney Spears because she had an affair with Wade.And he isnt looking for millions from her

            I would say the damage he is trying to do to MJ is entirely different
            And he wants millions, on top of it.
            The Arvizo were completely full of it , and look what a toll , it took, on MJ reputation and finances
            Look what Wade is doing..I certainly dont believe a word he says, but something or someone provoked him into taking this route

          2. And I dont think the Robsons are financially set.He lost a hundred grand on his condo, when he sold it as I recall,
            His sister is on her fb page trying to sell some of her old furniture and reminding people , she is also a masseuse.
            I think these people in the entertainment business live job to job.And wade has no education, to speak of ..The only thing he knows is the entertainment business.
            If he is no longer in demand ,then his prospects are limited , to say the least.

          3. “That is a grown man and a kid sharing a room.”

            Bobby Taylor said in the David Gest documentary that MJ used to sleep with him when he was a kid. Taylor is 28 years older than MJ. He also said he was raised that way.

          4. Sorry to comment (on a minor matter) and run; but it was Bobby Taylor (not Bobby Driscoll), in the “Icon” documentary who comes forward as someone who played a major role in Michael’s development as a performer in his early years. Bobby Taylor had a band called the Vancouvers that were (I believe) based in Chicago. He taught Michael a lot, and was, with Gladys Knight, one of the people who brought the Jackson 5 to the attention of Berry Gordy at Motown.

            And Taylor did say that he and Michael shared a room.

          5. Yes sorry, I got the name wrong, of the man in the ICON video..that is who I meant , thanks for correcting the name 🙂

          6. I also don’t see any behavior of OCD. Most people when nervous have reassuring tics they present, I remember watching an interesting body language documentary on the BBC once which used as an example one of our old prime ministers repeatedly making the same motions during a very awkward speech he was giving, it’s a subconscious way of trying to reassure and ground ourselves. But that doesn’t mean they have OCD.

          7. We can’t, of course, diagnose anyone as anything unless we are doctors. I just know Michael exhibited a lot of the same behaviors I have seen in my own family, through many years of living with OCD and its various manifestations. But it is very rare that we, the public, are ever seeing Michael in a truly unguarded moment. Always, there is a camera on him (otherwise the moment would not be recorded for posterity) and this is true of even what we see as his most “casual” moments. This puts the subject under the pressure of being “on.” And I don’t think a person ever truly gets over the nervousness of being in front of people, being watched and observed, no matter how many times they do it-or how many millions they have performed in front of. Thus, some of Michael’s gestures-the fidgeting, lip biting, etc-are normal reactions to that kind of self conscious nervousness. That isn’t really the sort of thing I am talking about, however.

            The danger may have come when he was around people who did not understand the reasons for some of this repetitive behavior, and may have wondered why he would feel a need to hug a child, say, four to five times in a row. To the outward eye, that would appear excessive. To Michael, I think, it was just reassuring; a way of grounding. But my point is that I think some of these employees were seeing this kind of thing, and in their dirty minds, were either subconsciously or consciously (because they were looking for any excuse to run to the tabloids) making it into something it was not. Thus, they could feel somehow justified in going to the tabloids and accepting their payout. “Well, gee, I don’t really know what he was doing with those kids, but I can tell you, I saw some things that looked pretty strange to my eyes,” blah blah blah. And, of course, that was all that was needed to sell the story. And the more it became entrenched in the public consciousness that Michael could be a child molestor, the wilder and more exaggerated we see the stories become, until whatever truth may have prompted those initial observations is completely forgotten under a deluge of lies and innuendo.

        2. A couple more observations about the makeup and inability to sleep. Michael’s face was his trademark, and this documentary was going to be shown throughout the world, and he had vitiligo and a lupus rash which, if he had an outbreak under the makeup, would intensify because of the heat from the spotlights. It’s quite feaseable that he could feel his makeup slipping because of perspiration, and wanted to make sure it didn’t lead to a makeup-meltdown. The other point is that many, many creative people, once they tap into the creative parts of their brains, cannot “come down” from that kind of clarity and arousal, and will spend the night running ideas through their heads. If you look at his body language, he is sitting calmly through most of this video, hand and body relaxed, no twitching, no little nervous tics, etc. I don’t see how you can pick on his attention to makeup, which is his job, and ignore the rest. If he did put his hand on top of his head a couple of times, I’m sure the hairpiece he was forced to wear itched unbearably sometimes. If you observe yourself or others around you, you might well notice more repetitive behavior by them/you than he is exhibiting. Some people repeatedly play with their hair, or scratch their noses, or jiggle their feet. It’s all allowed under the “normal” label, isn’t it?

          1. OCD, however, runs the gamut from the very mild to the severe, and you would be surprised how many symptoms (some of them quite mild, relatively normal and relatively harmless) fall under its umbrella. I know, as an OCD sufferer myself.

        3. Hmmm. Interesting. Well, I still haven’t finished reading Sullivan’s book, and the way my schedule looks right now, there is no telling when that might happen (lol). It would make sense, of course, for Jordan to invest the money he got out of that deal. If he did, that was smart of him and I’ll give him that much.

          I agree with Simba, though. I don’t think the estate should owe him a damn thing. He was a personal friend of Michael’s, nothing more and nothing less. He wasn’t family, and he wasn’t an employee. And they certainly don’t even take care of his family other than his kids and his mom. So why would they owe anything to Wade Robson?

          Just because Wade is acting with a sense of entitlement doesn’t mean he is entitled. The very WORST mistake that the estate could do, IMO, would be to negotiate with this guy in any shape, form, or fashion. That would only open the doors to many, many more such bogus cases.

          Also, if his beef was truly just a beef with the estate, why on earth would he drag the name of his friend through the mud just to get back at them? After all, Michael Jackson the man and human being was something totally separate from the entity that is now his estate. I am not saying it isn’t possible, but I just have a hard time getting my hands around that logic. For sure, it would take a very cold blooded person to be able to do that. But Michael’s life was apparently filled with cold blooded people

          1. Sounds like it’s still as true as ever. This is something I’ve long suspected about Wade, from what I have observed of him.

    3. I thought Blanca was fired–it came out in the 2005 trial, I believe. She was fired specifically for taking a peek into another employees’ purse to check out her paycheck. She admitted on the stand also to taking things from MJ’s room to borrow (without asking permission) or just to approprite and take home b/c she didn’t think he wanted it. (???) One item was a drawing of Elvis that he had thrown away and another was a Captain Eo Disney watch.

      I do think when MJ saw her wearing one of his jackets w/o permission he should have fired her then and there. It showed that she had no respect for his property or really for him as her employer–she was way too relaxed and taking over where she should have respected boundaries. But she said she was cold, so he let it go. Big Mistake.

    4. I’m sorry, but the lay-person diagnosis is making me angry. Do we really need to stick this label on him or anyone? Is everyone who is a perfectionist obsessive-compulsive? A novelist, for instance, will work through his manuscript from fifteen to fifty times, sometimes only changing a few phrases. It’s part of his job, just as making the best record he knew how was part of Michael’s.

      1. I’m sorry if it makes you angry, but I think (hope)I was pretty clear in stating that it is just a personal theory I have. A theory is in no way meant to be construed as an infallible truth. It is just an observation. If we wish to understand how/why some of these stories about Michael circulated, it makes sense to understand them from every plausible angle. It is too easy to simply go the route of saying that all of these people were just money hungry liars. In most cases, they were. But they obviously had reasons to believe why their stories might hold up and be believed. This means examining, as honestly as possible, not only the public perception of Michael, but some of his own actions as well, which as I’ve stated (and as we know) were often misunderstood and misconstrued by others. I am attempting to look at all of these possible angles

        A theory doesn’t mean it must be accepted. But it means it might be something worth considering. Michael wasn’t perfect; he was human. And OCD is one of the most common anxiety disorders known to man. And I would be willing to bet that most of the major artistic geniuses of our time have been afflicted with it in some form or another. It’s not a judgment because it’s not a character defect. Of course, there is a fine line between compulsion and simply being driven to succeed. But Michael did have a tendency (which, to me, became more noticeable in his later years) of engaging in certain repetitive gestures and behaviors. It may or may not have meant anything.

        What I DO have a problem with are people who attempt to play doctor by diagnosing Michael as this or that, and acting as if their theories are facts. You only have to do a quick Google search to find people only too willing to say Michael was autistic; Michael had Asperger’s; Michael had this or this or this.But that is not what I am trying to do here. I am only throwing it out as, perhaps, one possible reason why some people may have misconstrued his intentions, especially, for example, if they might have seen him kissing a child repeatedly (as he does with Sage in the video. And can you imagine the talk that would have ensued if this had been a male child?). People who were only too anxious to do him a dirty deed for a price loved to run with just that kind of info-and they did, all the time. I don’t think it hurts to take an honest look at these possibilities. It doesn’t mean that he was (only a qualified doctor could have made that diagnosis). In the end, none of these things really prove or disprove his innocence. Only the FACTS of the cases can do that. But I think it does help, perhaps, in gaining a better understanding of how/why some of these accusations came to be made. I have been watching Michael and observing footage of him for a long time (as, of course, most of us here have) and this is just an observation of mine, for what it is worth.

        Of course, what it is worth could mean absolutely nothing.

        1. Part of the human condition seems to be that we want someone we love to be more like us. Parents often focus on those traits of their children that remind them of their own and ignore those who don’t. Gay people have gone back in history and “discovered” all kinds of symptoms of famous people that prove that they were gay. And, case in point, pedophiles will look at someone like Michael and see what they want to see and will therefore confirm their own way of life. Could it be that finding OCS in others is no different from those kinds of patterns?

          1. In this case, no. I am not looking to find a fellow OCD sufferer in Michael. I could care less if it was something we “shared,” or not. I am only interested in how this might have possibly played a role in how others’ perceived his actions.

  3. Michael was not OCD.OCD is a disabling condition that is manifested by repetitive compulsive actions like hand washing and locking and unlocking doors multiple times in a ritualistic fashion. I’m not even sure if the term perfectionist would apply but rather he was just an artist that could see where his next project could be improved.
    His insomnia was a result of having worked since he was a young child. A human does not have a set circadian rhythm until they are 7-10 years old. Being up late, early rehearsals and flying the world was one of the major causes of that.
    The second cause is his dancing. He would spend countless hours rehearsing everyday of his life not just during a tour rehearsal. If he was sleeping late into the day he was dancing late in the day and the increased adrenalin production from the aerobic activity would keep him awake.
    When I watched the video it did not seem like Sage was uncomfortable with MJ just having to sit there while all of the adults involved wasted their time by fluffing hair, reapplying makeup just to rack up hours to get paid in my opinion

    1. No, that is actually a misconception of what OCD is. That is only its most common manifestation. In fact, the one thing that irks me most is when someone mentions OCD and someone just assumes, “Oh yeah, that’s when people wash their hands over and over or compulsively check things over and over.” It can manifest itself in many, many more subtle ways than that. And, in fact, the term itself is a misnomer, since it is actually an umbrella term that applies to several very different (even if albeit related) disorders, one being the compulsion toward rituals or repetitive acts, and the other being obsessive thoughts that the person cannot control. But the ritualistic behaviors are not always as drastic as constant hand washing or lock checking.

      OCD has been used to categorize a very wide range of behavioral patterns. But it’s ultimately a very frustrating disorder to completely understand or even correctly diagnose. Just as with attention deficit disorder, a person could argue indefinitely as to whether a child actually has it, or if they are simply energetic. Or bored. Or all of the above. I don’t think it’s completely impossible to entertain the idea that at least some of Michael’s creative drive and ambition could have been a manifestation of OCD. I think that anyone who thinks it does is only looking at it from a very negative standpoint (that any/all psychiatric disorders are bad, and only terribly bad, weak people must have them). THAT is a misconception that I really wish we, as a society, could get past. Vivien Leigh, for example, was one of Hollywood’s greatest actresses; an amazing talent. But she also had bi-polar disorder. Many of her greatest achievements in acting came from her ability to tap into that darker side of her psyche that, quite honestly, might not have even been possible had she not been bi-polar.

      With that being said, I realize it’s a bit of a slippery slope, especially when here we are, criticizing people like Victor Gutierrez for trying to make his own labels and theories about Michael “stick.” Or, as you pointed out, those who use their pseudo-science to try to make him somehow “fit” a pedophile profile. It is always easy-sometimes too easy-to draw conclusions about a public figure we never met, and everyone has their own agenda for doing so. In my case, I just want to understand some of the reasons that could have led these accusations and perceptions of Michael in the first place.

      To be honest, I think Sage and Michael were both a bit uncomfortable during this shoot. There’s no telling how many hours they were sitting there, in full makeup and dress, to get a few minutes’ worth of footage. I also know from personal experience (having been a Jingle dress dancer myself for many years, and dealing with dozens of little girls who were Jingle dress dancers and wore the same type of regalia that Sage is wearing here) just how heavy and uncomfortable those dresses are! An adult Jingle dress can easily weigh up to 50 pounds, and for a child, even half that weight is a lot! Additionally, the fabric is very hot and heavy. Most kids-even those proudest of their Indian heritage!-can’t wait to get out of those clothes once a dance is over! So imagine what she was feeling, standing around in that dress for hours on end!

      1. Raven, this goes to the larger issue, I think—why do we, as a society, continually have to judge, label, castigate the “different,” in whatever way their difference becomes legible? Why this terrified drive toward conformity, as if somehow “we” are normal, while “they” (THOSE people, over THERE), are somehow tainted by illness, deformity, abnomality, a state of permanent alienhood?

        Not only did James Baldwin remark presciently about this matter in Michael Jackson’s case (in a quotation that is probably too well-known at this point to cite again); Michael himself explored this theme quite thoroughly in “Ghosts,” as the Mayor and all the good citizens of “Normal Valley” descend upon the Maestro’s scary, haunted, cobweb-ridden mansion, in the hopes of driving this “freak” out of their wholesome, normal enclave.

        People with psychiatric disorders (which are too prevalent among the population to be considered “abnormal” anymore); subaltern sexualities (also not “abnormal”); not to mention that most freakish creature of all—the child star and the former child star, who is automatically assumed to be a damaged soul—all of these unfortunates become fair game for ostracism and bullying, writ large.

        You’ve stated, Raven, that you have OCD yourself; and I, too, have been psychiatrically labeled. But apart from that, I readily admit that I am crazy, a freak, a weirdo, a misfit, and a malcontent. What’s more….I wouldn’t have it any other way! I’m in good company!

        Michael wore his difference on his sleeve; this is why he became a target for everyone who needed a whipping boy to assure themselves of their own unassailable membership in the “normal” way of things (oh, the comfort of that)! The pundits, and through them the public, had to have *something* to pin on Michael.
        ____________________

        Please deliver me from “normalcy.” The very idea of the “normal” posits a future in which certain destruction will befall those who, by majority decree, find themselves outside of the shuttered and locked system of exclusion it imposes. Thus, “the normal” exerts a kind of tyranny over our own lives; the very idea of it is an apparatus by which we can bludgeon and oppress our fellow people with impunity, browbeating them into submission until they cave in to utter uniformity of thought, expression, and activity. At the same time, it’s the means by which we can impose self-censorship and stringent checks on our own behavior, which we must constantly monitor and never deviate from. It is among the most pernicious of illusions, the “normal”: we might as well be living under a totalitarian regime. In fact, to the extent that we have all internalized the illusory image of the “normal” to which each and every one of us must aspire, we ARE living under precisely such a system.

        Pardon me for this rant; it comes to my mind all too readily at the suggestion that Michael Jackson—to detractors and fans alike—must continually be subjected to an imaginary panoptic and diagnostic gaze, by an authority whose nature is so amorphous we can barely name it. I call it ideology.

        1. I agree with much of this in that we are all pushed into conforming, following the herd, etc., and hammering on the one who is different, the one whio refuses to conform and is happy being eccentric, unusual, defiant, etc. In fact, we as a cultjre pride ourselves on ‘indidualism’ and yet there is so little of it in a deep sense–funny that all the ‘individuals’ end up thinking and being like all the other ‘individuals.’

          On the other hand, if the person who has these psychiatric labels assigned is genuinely in pain, then that person will seek help or if not, will need help that is often not there even if it is sought (psychologists being good and bad and indifferent). People who are self-harming, etc, really do need help, as well as people in severe pain (psychological pain is IMO as torturing as physical pain). So when people suggest that MJ might have had OCD, anorexia, bi-polarism, or what have you, it is an effort not to detract from him but to try and understand what kind of pain he was in. I know you, Nina, have often said you think MJ fans focus too much on his pain–but he is the one who spoke openly so many times about “the painful youth I’ve had.” So IMO this is a part of him he wanted us to see. “WIll you be there– in my joy and in my sorrow.”

          1. I understand completely, iutd. I myself have been through a psychiatric illness that was unbearable; and I would have given anything to be “normal,” by my own lights. People do rightfully seek help all the time, as well they should.

            I guess I was referring to those who have the temerity to look at others and judge them “abnormal,” smug in their belief that they, by contrast, are the very picture of health and “normalcy”—which, of course, THEY get to define.

            I hear you, too, about Michael. He frequently made allusions to his own discomfort in the world, the theme of sullied innocence, the reminders of what he had sacrificed to make others happy. True, I do think fans dwell a lot on his persecution and suffering; but to the extent that Michael himself spoke of it, I believe the vulnerability (and perhaps “ingratitude”?) he showed when he talked about his painful youth (and, we assume, his equally painful adulthood) forms part of the reason why he was so maligned by the press and, by extension, the public at large.

        2. I really think it stems from all the years of media abuse. We have continuously heard Michael derided as “Wacko Jacko.” We’ve been deluged with those who have tried to psychoanalyze him; to pin every kind of label under the sun on him. Every issue that in some way pegs him as someone “outside the norm” has become a sore spot, because usually it is seen as just another attempt to place him among the “weird” or to deny him of his basic humanity. We have seen this type of thing over and over, and so I understand absolutely where fans are coming from in saying enough of it is enough. By the same token, however, I sometimes fear it has eroded our ability to have honest dialogs about those things which may/could have been part of his makeup. After all this time, I am certainly not here to be another criticizer of Michael. I am here to try to understand him better, and to understand where some of these perceptions about him came from. Sometimes that may mean raising some tough questions, but it comes from a place of love and respect, not a desire to tear him down. Sadly, the same can’t be said about so much of what we read of him.

  4. I think the most that we can get from this video is that Michael liked to kiss girl children as much or more than boy children.So much for that theory.
    The people that we write these articles to are looking for validation of a point that is wrong. Michael did not reject girls as they say he did. The thing is that they have been trained by the media to ignore the girls and focus on the boys. The media that was trained by Victor Gutierrez via Diane Dimond. Also remember that Gutierrez describes his “research” going on since 1984 or 86.Every one of these so called witnesses were around in that time frame.
    It was like debating on Twitter with one of the so called Wade Robson Supporters about Jordan sitting on MJ’s lap at the WMA’s in Monaco and he stated that he was bouncing him on his knee. I stated that when watching it, it’s clear the he was on the chair not lap. I then showed this person the photo of MJ carrying Lily and Lily sitting on Michael’s lap in the back of the car out of Monaco. Of course there is never an answer or reply to that because it doesn’t fit their agenda and their agenda is always easy to figure out.
    There is a reason for the old saying Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We look at and spend time appreciating what we find attractive. We avert our eyes from things we find unpleasant. When Gutierrez went after Michael it was because he saw only the boys in the picture because that was his focus.
    The same can be said about their unprofessional diagnosis of Michael as a pedophile. They use their own biases and trickery when they say that he fits the profile. The evidence of 3 books (one not used) in 1993 is far more suggestive of them being planted their by either Francia or McManus. They ignore the heterosexual adult porn found and focus on 2 books and then only one photo from those two books of countless photos. If Michael was a pedophile he would have had more child porn than he had adult heterosexual porn and yes I’m going to be the trier of fact and call it porn. I’m not as PC as Susan Yu.
    Most pedophiles when caught have thousands of these images that are found on computers in diaries in albums because that is what they use for erotica. It’s this imbalance of the erotic images that makes him not one but a totally normal heterosexual man that likes to look at girls.
    And by the way if you ever run across the ones that say acquaintance molester just remember that all that terms means is that it is someone that knows the child versus a stranger.

    1. I have always said, had they found thousands of pornographic images of naked men or boys in Michael’s house-or any child porn, for that matter-I would give up the gauntlet here and now. Just think if the shoe were reversed. Had they found something like 1800 images of men and boys, haters would justifiably have a good laugh at fans for being in denial. But instead, they are the ones who look like desperate fools in denial! They have gone for the “grooming” angle because it’s the only card they have to play. But it’s a pretty weak one.

      I have some more thoughts on this that I am going to get into when I do the next few posts in this series. One thing I have always believed firmly is that Michael had always felt that he would be safer around boys than girls, because in the time in which he was growing up, a male surrounding himself with female children would have been highly suspect. Michael was raised to believe, for example, that there was nothing inherently wrong with sharing a bed with your male cousin, or brother, or best friend. It was only when opposite sex children slept together that eyebrows were raised. This paradigm has shifted now, as it understandably should, now that we are much more savvy and aware that male sexual child abuse is just as prevalent a problem as female child sexual abuse. But even now, there is still a lingering sense of decorum that dictates a boy child’s place is with men, and a girl child’s place is with women. Thus, if Michael sometimes “appeared” to give preference to boys, such as being more willing to allow boys into his private quarters, etc., this could certainly have gone a long way in explaining why. Knowing how Michael was raised, he would have actually felt much more uncomfortable with having female children in his private quarters (even though, of course, we know that several of these families did have daughters who just as routinely slept in his room as the boys did, but always, only with plenty of others around).

      1. Raven I have heard that I believe it was Frank or one of the Cascios that said it was not Michael that would tell the girls to leave but the boys. I think that is probably true when I remember back to my older brother and him saying things like ” do I have to take her” and his friends who would shout no when I wanted to go with them to play. It seems that kids haven’t really changed that much after all.
        The irony of those friends of my brothers rejecting me as a little girl came back to haunt them when every one of them asked me out on a date when I was a teenager. Then it was my turn to say no.:)

        1. It is normal for little boys to go through their “girls are icky” phase. This is something else that haters and detractors of Michael Jackson fail to consider, such as when they take out of context and blow out of proportion those alleged tenets made out to Jordan Chandler: “No bitches, wenches, heifers or hos.” Even if we assume Michael ever gave him such a list, it means nothing other than that he was playing along with every little boy’s fantasy. Michael may have been an adult, but he knew how children think, in the same way that all of the great writers of children’s books and creators of children’s fantasies (Walt Disney, Dr. Seuss, etc) understood. In the old “Our Gang” comedies, there was a short where Spanky and Alfalfa formed “The He-Man Women Haters’ Club.” No girls allowed! (Of course, Alfalfa, as always, falls for Darla Hood and it’s all she wrote). But the idea is that it is an idea as old and timeless as boyhood itself. The idea of “Let’s invent a fantasy world with no moms telling us what to do; no sisters tagging at our heels; no teachers giving homework; no dolls and no sissy tea parties.” The very next tenet on that list says, “Never give up your bliss.” This line is always either left out, or taken out of context and misconstrued, when haters attempt to use this list to prove their case. Those of us who are familiar with Michael’s “Dancing The Dream” know exactly what he meant by “Bliss” and it was nothing sexual:

          “From Bliss I came
          In Bliss I am sustained
          To Bliss I return.”

          And…

          “Feeling free, let us fly
          Into the boundless, beyond the sky
          For we were born to never die
          To live in bliss, to never cry
          To speak the truth and never lie
          To share our love without a sign
          To stretch our arms without a tie…”

          “Bliss,” as I interpret it, is a kind of eternal innocence. If we assume Michael wrote such a tenet, we have to look at the full context of it. Do I like seeing women referred to as “bitches, heifers, and ho’s?” No. But this was putting the idea in a language that a boy would understand, a reference to that small window of childhood where a child might fantasize about such a place, and such a possibility. The next line, to me, confirms this. “Never give up your bliss” means facing the knowledge that the window on this brief time will close. Soon enough, little boys discover they actually LIKE girls, but along with that awakening, a small piece of the innocence is lost, never to return. So I think this could have been Michael’s way of saying, “You WILL grow up, but keep a small part of that innocence locked away in your heart forever. Never let go of it.”

  5. I’m sure that everyone knows that I have been actively tracking things said on the FB page of the Wade Robson supporters. Nan I think it’s interesting that Sullivan said that Jordan was now worth $60 million because I saw that figure on their FB page as a figure that Wade Robson deserved or was looking to get. Very interesting.
    I know that people kind of poo poo that page and what they are doing but they shouldn’t. They should watch it carefully because from time to time they give themselves away as being more involved in it than just someone who took up a cause. They also give their origins away at every turn.They even talk about Topix and recommend Desiree Speaks So Listen and MJ Facts is posted several times in their recent posts by others.
    Knowing who they are and where they come from should make anyone question why Wade Robson would have them support him.

    1. I do have some thoughts on that page. I haven’t addressed them yet because I am saving it for a future post in the series where I think it will be more appropriate and have more relevance, but I do absolutely believe a lot of what you are saying. There is far too much insider info on that page, and too many connections.

      1. Have you ever seen who they follow on Twitter and who follows them. Diane Dimond follows everyone of them. Stacy Brown too. Is that why we hear of all this evidence that was not evidence? Is that the connection to the media that they get their page in the news? Those are questions that should be asked and answered by them. It also speaks volumes when she says that she keeps getting dragged back into the Michael Jackson story when she actively seeks people to disseminate her information.

        1. Diane Dimond is as passionate and driven in her determination to “prove” MJ a pedophile as any advocate is to determine his innocence, and that is a fact. The dangerous thing about Dimond is that she cloaks her bias very well under the guise of “neutral reporter.” Yet a neutral reporter would not actively seek these people out. You don’t see people like Alan Duke, or Piers Morgan, or Anderson Cooper following these people on Twitter, or going to parties at Ron Zonen’s house, or hobknobbing around with Tom Sneddon. Dimond’s background is as a tabloid reporter (something she tries very hard to play down now) and she still retains all that she learned from her tabloid school of journalism ethics.

          1. Absolutely, Raven! She is a very adept liar and hypocrite. Did you see the piece she did for the Huffington Post a couple of years ago where she was stating that the “media lies to you” ? I always thought that there was no true evil in the world – people have good and bad qualities, but over the course of researching all things Michael, I have changed my opinion. I see now that some people are truly evil and I think she is one.

            Here is the article. If you would rather not have her article on your site (and I would not blame you) just delete it.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/the-media-lies-to-you—b_b_706784.html

            Another thing Raven, she has to steal Michael’s lyrics for both of her books – Be Careful Who You Love and Be Careful Who You Trust. Talk about a lazy “journalist”!

  6. One last comment. Sorry I have to keep adding things as I think of them. Jordan got $15,331,250.00 in his settlement. Contrary to popular opinion that was actually broken down from a Retainer agreement with Feldman. It had to be because the Retainer agreement came before the settlement. He got after the deductions probably a little over $7 million. Now I know that people are not aware of this but when Evan Chandler sued Michael the second time Jordan joined him in that lawsuit as well. He filed his suit in 1998 and it was joined in arbitration with Evans. They lost the suit in arbitration against Lisa and Michael and had to pay their legal expenses. After a total of about 4 years I would imagine those were pretty hefty along with their own so I question just how much Jordan has. Plus he had to pay for his fathers medical bills, house his father and maintain his fathers life in the last years. So how much does he really have? I think that Sullivans source was probably Ray Chandler trying to still sell the idea that Jordan came out of it rich. After all that was what was so important to them.

    1. Thats a good point Lynette,
      Ray Chandler could very well be spinning how much JC has now.
      I dont follow much about Wade supporters , but it is interesting that they mentioned 60 million also
      Didnt Adrian McManus and Ralph Chacon owe MJ over a million dollars because they had to pay MJ legal fees?
      If lawyers were billing for several years, I would imagine that was an immense amount of money.

  7. Did any of you guys see this Ohio buckeye half-time show (10-19-13)dedicated to Michael Jackson on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of BAD? Here’s the link:

    1. This Buckeye TV version has over 1,200,000 views in just two days! The groundswell of support for positive affirmations such as this is so satisfying. I really feel that the supposed “ugly stuff” which came out in the AEG trial has had the opposite effect, that is, revealing Michael’s humanity and “normalcy” in the face of years of physical and emotional adversity.

      1. As I continue to say, once you get outside the realm of the internet trolls, most people in real life do not have a negative attitude toward Michael. Only on very rare occasions have I actually encountered people who are hostile towards him, and it is only because they believe the allegations about him. I have seen this mostly among very conservative Christian types or the little, old “blue haired” ladies whose only knowledge about him comes from the tabloids they browse through while under the dryer at the beauty salon. Otherwise, say the name “Michael Jackson” and there is usually a lot of reverence, or fond nostalgia. Occasionally, I encounter indifference (people who don’t like him because his music isn’t their cup of tea) but not hostility. “MJ haters” are actually a very small band of internet sheep.

  8. hi raven,since you are into trying to trace this false allegations i just want to share this 93 article about another boy & his family who met MJ during their 1991 vacation in Bermuda with Mac, apparently the boy was a costar of Mac in My Girl. There’s a part in the article that reminds me about what Corey Feldman is trying to say in his upcoming book about young stars in hollywood and also what you are trying to refer to above about innocence & growing up:

    “Michael simply is the type who can’t say no to a kid. He’s always been concerned about kids in the limelight because of his own childhood experience.

    “He knows that some child stars have gotten into drugs or otherwise had a difficult time. He knows it’s tough to learn by age 12, you’ve peaked. Michael is aware of what that can do to a boy. He makes an effort to bring happiness to all youngsters.” Goldstein pointed out that Michael didn’t make it to adulthood without scars.

    Here’s the link to the article. Just ignore the ‘asexual male’ part coz otherwise it’s a positive article: http://articles.philly.com/1993-09-01/news/25988035_1_alan-goldstein-brock-young-friends

    1. Thanks for this. That trip to Bermuda must have been something indeed! It’s become almost legendary. They are even referring to it in that clip from Private Home Videos (the Easter Egg hunt). I think the trip to Bermuda may have actually been one of the prizes in the eggs!

      I read the article from the perception of a skeptic. At first, it seemed almost like just the typical kind of defense we often saw from those supporting Michael, but I was most impressed with the article’s closing passages:

      “…Michael is adored by males and females. What makes me ponder his innocence, instead of his guilt as most people are doing, is the lack of credible evidence. There have only been unsubstantiated charges up to now. And, at the very least, they have to be called into question.

      Unless the Los Angeles Police Department, which is conducting the major investigation of Michael’s relationships with youngsters, is withholding information, there has not been anything to confirm charges of sexual abuse on Jackson’s part. More than once, authorities have “confiscated” films, pictures and other of Michael’s personal possessions and no incriminating evidence has been found.

      If Jackson fondled a 13-year-old, would there not have been other victims among the hundreds he has befriended? Many children have come forward, but only to defend him.

      Jackson’s innocence or guilt does not matter to millions, especially those who have long thirsted to see him topple from his pedestal because he dares to be “different.” No matter how hard he tries to shake the charges, Michael Jackson will forever be tainted, perhaps not because of what he did, but

      because of who he is. That is the most tragic part of this horror story.”

      This is an important truth. Although in the 90’s, when the Chandler story broke, Michael had much more support then (and people unwilling to believe the charges) there was, undeniably, a deep-rooted desire to see him toppled from his throne. This was why so many embraced the scandal. For years, we had seen this guy dominating everything, and he seemed unstoppable. The backlash was immense. I think there were people who honestly relished his downfall as much as we relished those televangelist scandals in the late 80’s, and for much the same reasons. Michael, by the late 80’s and early 90’s, had become as much despised as loved (if albeit for the wrong reasons). In some ways, it could be analagous to what we are seeing now with Justin Bieber. I’m sure there are many now who would just love it if Bieber was accused of something so heinous that it ruined his reputation. There would be celebrations if that happened! And Michael, at that time, was very much in the same place-an icon that many felt had become just too big, and too annoying.

  9. Raven, I took another look at the video of MJ with Sage Galesi, and noticed that even though he hugs and kisses her repeatedly, he’s not that ‘into’ her. He’s connecting just to keep her from getting too bored with the publicity photo process. At the 2:40 mark, Sage demands attention from MJ, who is chatting with the photographer and ignoring her somewhat.

    Speaking of OCD, when is someone going to interrogate Mark Lester over his obsessive, compulsive need to intrude in Paris Jackson’s life. There’s a very unsavory tone to his endless claims of paternity, which he expresses in yet another new interview.

    1. What Mark Lester is doing has nothing to do with OCD, which is a genuine illness and an illness that afflicts millions-including me. Mark Lester is just trying to get a piece of the pie.

      Whatever Michael is doing in the video-and you’re probably right, as it seems he is trying to ease her through what must have been a very tedious process with that photo shoot-it’s a bit over the top. Again, this isn’t about what his intentions were, but how they might have been perceived by certain individuals around him. And you have to remember, these people are not looking at him from the perspective of a fan, or a caring friend. They are viewing it strictly as a working relationship, or an employer/employee relationship, and looking for any potential to sell him out. In other words, he is nothign to them but a meal ticket, and like vultures, they are scouting out every opportunity. Again, if these people saw him acting that way with a little girl, it probably wouldn’t have raised eyebrows because he was not, at the time, under scrutiny as someone who liked little girls (though my husband says he remembers there was a bit of controversy over the scene in “Moonwalker” where he takes Katie, alone, into a cave). But all it would have taken is one person like Adrian MacManus, or Phillip LeMarque, to see him repeatedly kissing a little boy on the cheek, and out would have come the knives-and the check books. This is what I’m getting at. And I am now more convinced than ever that this was a stage being set long before there were any actual allegations. When I update again (which, hopefully, will be tomorrow) I have some videos I found from early 1993 which bear this out (remember, the Chandler allegations didn’t hit until late that summer; these parody vids were broadcast in February, pre-dating the public scandal by some five to six months). It shows, if anything, that the atmosphere was ripe for these allegations to take root. And gives further credence to the idea that Evan Chandler was just an opportunist taking advantage, assuming that Michael’s “reputation” would give his story credibility.

  10. Hi Raven,

    I’d like to add my voice to those irked by “the diagnosis” – I know you made it clear it a personal theory and your own observations, but suggestions like that should only be made by trained professionals and not observers or even people who themselves suffer from a certain issue. You would not try to diagnose someone with a heart disease based on observations and what you may read on the net, right? Same goes for psychiatry. I think people use clinical terms like ocd, depression etc way too freely, when in reality its like attempting surgery at home with a manual. No offense, but since D in OCD stands for disorder, I dont think its appropriate at all to say that a tendency to repeat some gesture has anything to do with it.

    And another point, people have projected their own issues on Michael his whole life and beyond, so naturally someone who is uncomfortable around children would find his affection “troubling”. Lots of people display 100 times that affection towards their pets, with all kinds of kissing, yet noone is accusing them of zoophilia… Its the scrutiny and magnifying of every little detail that makes everything weird and out of proportion. Now, lots of people who actually knew Michael for years and who were totally comfortable to let him play with their kids – none of them ever said anything about him being too affectionate or acting inappriate or even arousing a slight suspision about his motives, not even in a passing comment. All that filth comes from people with shady stories and who tried to gain something. So, what the point in disecting Michael and his behavior? Honestly, absolutely anyone can be made to look strange and batshit crazy if you zoom in on them enough

    It sounds like you are saying that there might have been somethingin Michaels behavior to misunderstand, and in my view the desire to find something to pin on him, anything, came first and it could have been anything. Whatever he could have been into would have been used against him and it happened to be children. We already know how many of these people straight out lied, and by saying that some of them could have misunderstood the situation, it feels like a really bad excuse for making some very serious accusations.

    1. I think there was plenty there to misunderstand, and people did-all the time.

      But, yes, things had reached a head where most anything he did-no matter how innocently-was apt to be misconstrued.

      My whole point is that it took all of these facets working together to create what ultimately happened, and that was Michael being branded as a child predator (at the very least) and a molestor (at worst). It’s too easy just to say it was all the work of bad people trying to frame him. That was true, but again, the accusations didn’t just evolve out of thin air. This was the result of people who had been eyeing him with suspicious and bad intent for a long time. What I am trying to do now is to examine all of the possible, organic reasons why this happened.

      Even if we throw out the OCD theory, the fact remains that it was Michael’s great affection for children that got him into this mess in the first place. That isn’t placing any blame; it’s just fact. And a lot of it, sadly, is steeped in societal ignorance and a certain amount of paranoia that has crept into our perceptions of adult/child relationships. But it is what it is. In my estimation,we can’t honestly understand the full complexity of this situation unless we do examine Michael’s behavior as well as those around him. This isn’t intended, necessarily, as a criticism of that behavior. It is an attempt to understand it, and perhaps to put it in its proper context.

      Something very important that needs to be stressed. You state:

      Honestly, absolutely anyone can be made to look strange and batshit crazy if you zoom in on them enough.

      That certainly was true in Michael’s case, as we saw over and over! I do agree that people were holding him under a maginifying glass gaze.

      However, OCD is not “batshit crazy” and the fact that the word “disorder” is part of the acronym does not make it a “crazy” illness. Again, I fear, this stems from a huge societal stigma against anything or anyone outside “the norm”-whatever that is. OCD is no more or less stigmatizing than being afflicted with depression-also another major psychiatric disorder, and also one we know Michael suffered from-or, for that matter, anxiety (which, again, we know Michael had). In my eyes, it doesn’t lessen Michael in any way to at least raise the question.

      I have depressive disorder, and OCD. I am also a writer with two MA degrees, and a teacher.

      Michael had issues with depression, anxiety, and dependency. But he was also a musical genius, an exceptional philanthropist, and one of the greatest talents and human beings we are likely to ever see.

      Great people, intelligent people, talented people, etc., can be afflicted with these ‘disorders” just as readily as the average person on the street. It doesn’t make them “less than.”

      1. Thanks for your renponse 🙂

        When I wrote “batshit crazy” I was refering to the way Michael was portrayed as a freak to the public, not to OCD or other real mental issues. I have had dealt with depression myself, and have dear friends who live with clinical depression, so I never said that it was crazy. What I meant was that if you watch someone all the time, even film and photograph them constantly, then take anything just a little out of ordinary to some and only show those pictures/videos with added commentary – then yes, it is very possible to make anyone look strange at best. You see what I mean, if we take 5 or 10 % of someone’s behavior and magnify it to be a 100%, then we a get a completely wrong picture in total.

        I understand that you are trying to put the allegation in the larger context of what was going on and its very interesting. On the other hand I feel like the dark forces would have been there no matter what, if I Michael was into switching models all the time, or if he had gotten married at 25 and was raising a family, or whatever he did. There was so much money and power with him, that of course lots of people wanted to exploit it, or get a piece of it or hated him for it and wanted to see him fall. Thats why I kinda feel that looking at his own behavior can explain why it was his affection for children that was exploited, but its important to stress that he would have been exploited and attacked either way (and he was).

        I agree with you on Justin Bieber point btw, lots of people cant stand him and would love to see him fall just because he is so succussful and everywhere right now and they dont think he deserved it. I bet many felt like that with MJ too back then.

        1. Yes, they certainly did. And I can remember when the backlash started. There was a brief period in the early 80’s, around the time of Billie Jean, Beat It, and Thriller, that Michael Jackson was unarguably cool, even among rock purists. For some weird reason, the backlash started around the time of the Pepsi accident. I have no earthly idea why, since that was a horrific accident, but all of a sudden, you saw all of these awful jokes about Michael having his hair on fire. Instead of bringing out the best in people, that accident brought out the worst in people. Of course, other celebrities have not been immune to the petty meanness of human nature, either. We only have to look at all of the comedian jokes made about Christopher Reeve to attest for that. But even though other celebs might get mocked for their misfortunes, there is generally a larger sense that this is somehow in bad taste-a prick of conscience, if you will. In Michael’s case, there almost seemed to be no such filter. He was completely open game.

          Somehow that accident made it “okay” to laugh at Michael Jackson. Then, of course, there were the high school boys’ titters over “Beat It.” Then, as we move into the mid 80’s and Michael more or less disappears from us for two years, those weird tabloid rumors start circulating-the oxygen chamber, the Elephant Man bones, etc. And, of course, his changing appearance (keeping in mind that this went completely unexplained at the time).

          Plus, he had simply dominated the charts and MTV for too long. While many celebrated the diversity that Michael helped to bring to MTV, there were just as many who saw it as MTV’s downfall. I know that mindset very well because there were a lot of rock purists who complained that now, instead of seeing their favorite rock bands on MTV (what began as a rock and roll channel) they were now seeing hip-hop, rap, r&b, etc. And, yes, there was a racial element to it as well; people who resented black artists “taking over” MTV. But it was also more of a genre thing, too. Jimi Hendrix and bands like Living Colour were rock and considered “cool,” but in the rock genre, black artists have always been the exception rather than the norm. Michael’s music was still largely considered disco/pop/r&b (or whatever label they wanted to put on a black artist who simply made music).

          Everyone knew, back in the day, if Michael Jackson released a new album during a certain week, everyone else just might as well push theirs back because they were going to get buried otherwise. That was the kind of power and fame Michael had at its peak, and frankly, there was a whole element that wanted desperately to see him dethroned. I remember when the first allegations hit the news, there was even a kind of celebratory mood, especially among rock purists, because here was this guy who had always been so squeaky clean, so “bubblegum”-and yet dominant over all of them- and now he was being accused of something far more heinous than any rock star had ever indulged in. It was “break out the champagne” time in those circles.

          1. It’s happening again, this time to Sean “Diddy” Combs. Diddy, who is nowhere near as talented or beloved as MJ, does share certain characteristics – he’s young and very rich, on track to become hip hop’s first billionaire, and most significant, he’s black. That was tolerable until Diddy expressed an interest in owning an NFL franchise. Now suddenly Radar Online runs a story about an FBI informant who says he was asked about Diddy having sex with “underage boys”.

            The informant was not involved in a criminal enterprise with Diddy, and supposedly he was asked various questions about a number of people. So why did Radar lead with the Diddy story, especially since Diddy has never been associated with any such activity? In my opinion, it’s because ‘they’ think it’s past time to take down another ambitious black man who refuses to “stay in his lane”. Ownership of capital assets is for whites only.

  11. Raven, did you know that Robson’s lawyer is the same guy who apparently represents QJones in the lawsuit against the estate for what appears to be posthumous royalties filed yesterday, October 25? Pretty surprising. Of all the lawyers in Los Angeles…..

    1. No, I did not know it.

      It looks like everyone is jumping the bandwagon on suing the MJ estate. Although in Quincy’s case, I am not going to comment just yet because he may have a genuine case. Many of the MJ songs he produced WERE altered for projects like the Cirque du Soleil shows and This Is It, and he may have a legitimate claim in filing for royalties owed. Still, one has to wonder about the timing. This Is It was four years ago; the Immortal shows over a year ago. Why is he waiting until now? And why use the same attorney as Wade Robson?

      Secondly, doesn’t Quincy Jones have enough money already? I mean, at what point do you let bygones be bygones and just let a dead man rest in peace? Sure, this is a beef with the estate and Sony-not Michael personally, who had nothing to do with these projects-but, still, most people are going to look into it no deeper than seeing the headline and here we go: Michael even stiffed Quincy Jones!

      It just strikes me as a crass money grab.

      Don’t get me wrong. I respect Quincy as a musical genius. But a lot of my respect for him as a human being has slowly eroded. He never got over the fact that he and Michael ceased to be a team after “Bad.”

      1. Since when is Quincy Jones a “genius”? He’s a very successful arranger and producer for music, film, and television. So is David Foster, but nobody calls him a genius. Nobody called Q a genius when he worked with Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Ray Charles, and others that Quincy claimed were so much more talented than Michael. Q’s reputation is getting a free ride on MJ’s coat tails.

        1. Being the successful arranger and producer that QJ is is not something that just anyone with a little musical knowledge can do. Everything he ever produced has his distinctive, magical touch. Michael Jackson and QJ together were an unbeatable team, and yes, I think Quincy deserves some credit for that. His work with those other artists is just as renowned as anything he did in relation to Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad. Of course, he also made some pretty bonehead decisions which, thankfully, Michael had the good sense to override (such as not wanting Billie Jean on Thriller, or Smooth Criminal on Bad).

          I do agree that some tend to play up his contributions to those albums as a way of belittling Michael’s own genius. But I think that is just immature and stupid. The reason those albums are so damn good-and still hold up so well even today-was due to the collaborative effort of both Michael and Quincy giving the best of what they both did.

          You can like the man or loathe him, but he deserves his credit where it’s due. Just because I’m not crazy about QJ as a person doesn’t mean I have to belittle his accomplishments.

          1. I’m not belittling QJ’s accomplishments or knowledge. I just don’t think he’s a genius. QJ is good at his work, or at least he was some years ago. It was Mark Twain who said, “Give a man a reputation as an early riser and he can sleep ’til noon.” Q has been cruising on his reputation for a long time.

            That has nothing to do with his royalty suit, which may have merit. But using a lawyer who called Michael a “monster” was a sucky move.

        2. Simba I agree with Raven. I am not a fan of Qs attitude towards Michael, but he is considered a legend and a genius by music connoisseurs and its a misconseption that it is only because of his work with Michael. I found out a few years ago I was at a big jazz festival and there was a Q&A with him. People were in awe to see him live(and I have to admit so were we).Some had their instruments with them and played pieces of his work and many of the top musicians who were performing that day,came to the hall to see him. It was maybe a year after Michael passed away so ofcourse there were questions about Michael,(and the same old Socratiiiis story) but most questions were about his work in general.
          And his ‘fans’know as much about his work as we know about Michaels.
          I also love some of his work like the Dude(with Michael on background)and pyt is an MJ classic that is one of my all time favorites.
          That is why Weizman statement about 35 years of royalties paid to QJ, as if he was done a favor, is uncalled for, coming from a lawyer who made a career on MJ. Whereas everything that QJ and Michael did together was successfull, that cannot be said of Weizmans connection with Mj.
          Q is a grumpy old man but he is also a genius.

  12. Quincy’s case may have merit, so I too will give it benefit of any doubt at present. I’d be interested in why he is using the same attorney as Robson, the attorney having been quoted in several articles as calling Michael Jackson a “monster”, although perhaps Quincy is unaware of those articles. But he must be aware he shares attorneys with Robson. With all the lawyers in LA, how does QJ wind up with WR’s attorney? And which of these clients came into the attorney’s life first?

    The other issue I have, though hardly new, is that every article written re Quincy’s suit refers to it as being against the estate of “Michael Jackson” with no mention (unless one peruses the suit itself) that Sony Music Entertainment is actually a co-defendant. For instance, “QJ sues over Michael Jackson music”. As you said, people look no further than the headline.

    1. It actually makes sense for Gradstein to be representing Quincy Jones. Big time lawyers are specialists, and Gradsteins’s listing on the Super Lawyer website describes his practice as “Business Litigation (100%)”. The real question is why is a business litigator handling a molestation claim? A viable explanation on another website – Wade went to Gradstein when he lost out on the Cirque deal and Gradstein figured he’d have better luck with an abuse claim.

      1. Yes, I know Gradstein has a “good” reputation in the LA business legal community, does make sense he would rep QJ. As you say, why Wade? Here’s what I think is another viable explanation: QJ asks for an “accounting” from the Estate in connection with his royalty claim, wants to know all $ in and out of Estate, which info Gradstein could not get through the abuse claim. But if he gets an accounting through QJ’s royalty claim, who knows what use he would make of it for WR’s claim. I think it’s a conflict of interest for Gradstein to rep both plaintiffs and hope Estate succeeds in challenging it.

Leave a Reply to June Cancel reply