Thoughts On Aphrodite Jones's King Jordan Radio Show Interview

Aphrodite Jones's book "Conspiracy" has been the bible of MJ advocates for many years. But her expertise, by admission, is the 2005  Arvizo case-not the '93 Chandler case.
Aphrodite Jones’s book “Conspiracy” has been the bible of MJ advocates for many years. But her expertise, by admission, is the 2005 Arvizo case-not the ’93 Chandler case.

I wasn’t able to listen to this interview live on November 6th, but it was brought to my attention by several readers that Aphrodite Jones made some rather disturbing comments regarding the Jordan Chandler case. Of course, why this is such an issue is because Aphrodite Jones has long been a staunch Michael Jackson defender. Her book Conspiracy is practically the bible of all MJ advocates, especially when discussing the Arvizo case. And, as an award winning journalist, her work has been especially important in lending credibility to those of us who have advocated his innocence.

I found it almost hard to believe what I was hearing reported, but I went back and listened to the interview (which had been on my agenda anyway). Having now listened to it a few times, as well as reading all of the various reactions in the fan community (much of it quite heated) I want to offer some thoughts on it.

You can listen to the interview here:

First of all, I am as disturbed and dismayed as anyone by what she said in this interview, not necessarily because I feel that the views of every MJ advocate have to agree completely with my own, but simply because this new admission of having “questions” about the Chandler case-as well as being “unnerved” by June Chandler’s testimony-goes against the grain of everything Jones has claimed up to this point, including in her own book Conspiracy.

Before I get into all of that, I want to qualify that these comments are only a small segment of what was otherwise a very positive interview. As always, Jones does an outstanding job of slamming the Arvizos and their phony case, and breaks her silence on the Wade Robson allegations (he gets slammed pretty good, as well). She also dismisses the claims of Jason Francia.

Michael At The 2005 Trial. Grace Under Fire.
Michael At The 2005 Trial. Grace Under Fire.

Still…it may be a shame that such an otherwise positive interview has been marred by a few words that have sent shock waves through the fan community-again, only because Jones up until now has not only been a staunch public defender of Michael against the Arvizo allegations, but the Chandler allegations as well.

Clearly, I am asking the same question that a lot of you are asking right now. Why this sudden change of tune? And is it really so sudden, or has Ms. Jones simply been playing less than straight with us in some regards? I hate to have to address these questions, but they bear looking at.

I met Aphrodite Jones in 2010 and did a rather lengthy and detailed interview with her. In the course of that interview, we also talked at great length off the record, and one of the topics we discussed in great detail was that of June Chandler. At no time did she ever intimate to me that she found June Chandler’s testimony believable, much less “disturbing” or “unnerving.”

Aphrodite Jones Sitting For My 2010 Interview With Her. I Found Her Funny, Smart, And A Fierce Advocate For Michael. She Also Had Many Choice Words For June Chandler, None Of Which Included Finding Her Testimony Believable.
Aphrodite Jones Sitting For My 2010 Interview With Her. I Found Her Funny, Smart, And A Fierce Advocate For Michael. She Also Had Many Choice Words For June Chandler, None Of Which Included Finding Her Testimony Believable.

To be totally fair, Jones has never claimed to be an expert on the ’93 case. She has said as much many times. She was a witness to the Arvizo trial, and it is the Arvizo case that she has extensively researched. Still, anyone who came away from reading Conspiracy would certainly not come away with any “question mark” regarding the Chandler case, because no such question mark is ever raised. In the past, all of her public comments about June Chandler have been just as denigrating as her comments against Janet Arvizo-and certainly, she has never, up until now, given any indication of finding June Chandler’s testimony remotely believable.

Let’s go back and look at Aphrodite Jones’s own words regarding June Chandler and her testimony:

When questioned about the lawsuit, June Chandler said that she had been named in her son’s lawsuit but wanted it known that she had not sued Michael Jackson herself. June Chandler told the jury that Larry Feldman handled the civil lawsuit on behalf of her son, Jordon [sic], reiterating that Jordie was the only person who sued Michael.

To the amazement of the media covering the trial, under cross-examination by Mesereau, June Chandler testified that she hadn’t talked to her son Jordie at all, for over eleven years.
Ms. Chandler tried to keep her composure regarding the money issue, but then, as the questions got more heated, the woman began to shut down. To courtroom observers, Chandler appeared to be a gold digger. As she squirmed on the witness stand, it became painfully clear that this elegant woman, dripping designer clothing, had purchased that lifestyle with Michael Jackson’s cash.
Courtroom observers found It odd the way June Chandler sometimes didn’t have a mind for remembering things. Watching June Chandler testify that she “couldn’t recall” certain particulars relevant to the Chandler lawsuit seemed completely surreal. For example, June couldn’t recall whether Michael Jackson had ever countersued the Chandler family for extortion.
June Chandler seemed to have a selective memory. She had vivid recollections about all her travels with Jackson, from Los Angeles to Florida to Europe and back again, but couldn’t recall even the simplest details about Jordie’s lawsuit. When she was asked questions about her personal financial needs and wishes in 1993, June Chandler recalled her ex-husband, Evan, had once asked Jackson to finance a wing on the Chandler house. But as for herself, though she had accepted a few expensive gifts from Jackson, a Cartier bracelet among them, June Chandler swore that she wanted nothing monetary from rhe entertainer.
When she spoke about her son’s friendship with the pop icon, Chandler testified that she never suspected anything inappropriate was going on between Michael and Jordie. This response aroused consternation among media because everyone was waiting for Chandler to say something—anything—t hat would implicate Jackson.
Instead, June sat very proudly and spoke about her son’s friendship with Michael as being something special. She told the jury that Jordie had dressed like Michael, had tried to emulate the pop icon from the time that he was a very young child, before Jordie ever met the pop star. She also admitted that back in 1992 and 1993, Evan Chandler was busy writing a screenplay, telling the jury that because Evan wasn’t spending much time with Jordie back then, she was happy to have Michael around their home. Michael was devoting time to her son, and June said she was grateful for that.
She told the jury that she considered Michael to be “like a child,” and testified that Jordie was the one who had insisted on staying in Michael’s room at Neverland, which she described as being “filled with dolls” and a lot of play toys. Mrs Chandler said she’d been in Michael’s bedroom many times, and described it as “a boy’s room, a big boy’s room.”
June Chandler answered Mesereau with a staccato that was palpable. She kept it short and tried to be nonchalant when she spoke about flying on the Sony jet, about flying on billionaire Steve Wynn’s jet, about traveling to Orlando and has Vegas and other resorts around the world.
Though Ms. Chandler was being very matter-of-fact in her responses,Michael watched her with an intense closeness, and his stare seemed to transcend her cavalier attitude. As June Chandler testified, the jury watched her very intently, and people were trying to read her body language. When Ms. Chandler casually stated that she never had an issue with Michael being around her son, courtroom observers seemed stunned.
The more June Chandler tried to argue with Mesereau’s portrait of the Chandler family, the more it appeared that she was protesting too much. It seemed that Jackson had given the Chandlers a sense of che good life, had exposed them to a life of fame and fortune, and, having tasted a bit of Jackson’s world, the Chandler clan wasn’t willing to give that up. The Chandlers had developed champagne taste, and they wanted more.
As the beautiful Ms. Chandler left the stand, many of the jurors seemed unimpressed. From the looks on their faces, it was obvious that June Chandler had not keen a good witness. The females on the jury, in particular, seemed to see right trough her.

There is no indication anywhere that these are the words written by a journalist who has just found herself disturbed or unnerved by this woman’s testimony.

The one question that keeps playing in my mind, just as I so often turned over and over with Wade Robson’s allegations-which version are we now supposed to believe? Do we believe what Jones said in 2007-when her memories of the 2005 trial should have certainly been much fresher-or now?

Or are the two versions really that disparate? The one comment above that may perhaps somewhat corroborate what she is saying now is that the jury seemed somewhat stunned when Mrs. Chandler stated that she never had an issue with Michael being around her son. This would, it seems, be the normal reaction of a jury that had just witnessed some rather unnerving testimony. But this is far outweighed by the portrait Jones paints of a gold digger woman who left jurors “unimpressed” with any but a notion that this was a woman who had “purchased her lifestyle with Michael Jackson’s cash.” She says outright that June Chandler had not been a good witness for the prosecution. These are her own words, written here in her book, in unarguable black and white.

Yet, if we go by this new tune she is now singing, wouldn’t June Chandler, then, have been an excellent witness for the prosecution? That certainly would have been my impression!

It Has Become A Disturbing Pattern Of Wondering Which Version Of The "Truth" To Believe...Then or Now?
It Has Become A Disturbing Pattern Of Wondering Which Version Of The “Truth” To Believe…Then or Now?

If Aphrodite Jones is a such an impartial journalist who must remain true to herself, then why didn’t she tell us the truth in 2007 about June Chandler’s testimony? The problem is that, again, just as with Wade Robson, we are left wondering which version is the truth? It is, after all, not the truth that bothers me. It’s all this damned inconsistency. I just fail to see how she can make the comments she has made in this interview knowing full well that it contradicts her own words written in her own book. Surely, just as with Wade Robson’s testimony, she must know that words can come back to haunt!

The problem I have with her comments are much the same as those I have been hearing throughout the fan community. Ms. Jones, who is certainly an intelligent journalist, has to know that credibility is lost once you talk out of both sides of your mouth. How can she continue to be so adamant that the other cases were shams, if there is such a big question mark regarding the Chandler case? What makes Jordan’s claims any more credible than Gavin’s, or Wade’s for that matter? If she can so adamantly-on a public platform-rip these young men to shreds, call them liars and grifters, etc-why is Jordan all of a sudden given the courtesy of benefit of the doubt? Why be so adamant about the other cases, and yet fall back on the old cop-out adage of “I wasn’t there” when it comes to Jordan Chandler?

She wasn’t there to personally witness what may or may not have happened to Jordan Chandler. Well, she wasn’t there to see what may or may not have happened to Gavin or Wade, either.

The point I’m making is that she has now damaged her credibility very badly as an advocate for any of the cases because anyone now can come back and say, “Were you there for any of the others?”

It’s not so much the statement of a question mark that bothers me. It is when she uses phrases like saying she believed Michael was “in love with that boy.” My jaw hit the floor when those words came out of her mouth. And then, only a few minutes later into the program, she is again slamming the media and those who believe Michael was a pedophile-while she, herself, had just said she was led to believe by June Chandler’s testimony that he must have been “in love” with her son.

I really don’t know what planet Jones is from, but on planet earth, it is generally conceded that only a pedophile-or at least a hebephile-can be “in love” with a 13-year-old boy. Whether or not any sex ever occurred is really beside the point

If she came away convinced by June Chandler’s testimony that Michael was “in love” with Jordan Chandler, then honestly, I don’t know what else you would call it. So are we, then, to believe Michael was a pedophile who only struck once in his whole life, and all the other boys are just liars and grifters?

You get where I’m going with this, right? I am not saying it is what I believe. I am saying that, whether intentional or not, it is the impression-and the huge question mark-that is now hanging over Aphrodite Jones’s “defense” of Michael Jackson. Despite all her gushing platitudes of his innocence, she has left a very big chink for doubters and haters to fill. If Michael was capable of being “in love” with one boy, why would any reasonable person have reason to believe that it would stop there and only there?

I’m just having a really hard time trying to get my hands around Jones’s logic on this one. Perhaps it was poor word choice or phrasing, but nevertheless, the words are out for public consumption now, and the damage-both to Ms. Jones’s credibility as an MJ defender, and as an unwavering ally to the MJ fan community-has been done.

Judging from the conversations I have seen, all of the positives of Jones’s interview-of which there were many-have been completely obliterated by the shock waves of these few statements.

think before you speak

And personally, I agree with Deborah Kunesh who said that her response to David’s question was very condescending and unprofessional. David has been a well respected MJ researcher for several years, and one who has tirelessly promoted much of Aphrodite Jones’s work (as we all have).  To hear him referred to by her as “honey bunny” for asking a legitimate question was unnecessarily insulting and demeaning, especially given that he was asking her an intelligent question that deserved, at least, a professional response.

Like I said, I have met and spent time with Ms. Jones. I like her. She has a very blunt, tell-it-like-it-is kind of personality, which sometimes can be read the wrong way as arrogance. The downfall of such a personality is that she can be brash and sometimes say things “off the cuff” without really thinking them through. (A flaw of hers, which I picked up on: She doesn’t handle criticism well, and is quick on the trigger when she feels her credibility is being questioned. I got a good dose of this, myself, when I challenged her to answer those critics who accused her of being “smitten” with Michael Jackson. It was a valid question, but nevertheless, one that struck an obvious nerve).

Nevertheless, it is this same no-nonsense approach that has made her, through the years, one of our favorite MJ advocates. Nothing is more fun than listening to her rip people like Diane Dimond to shreds! (And, let’s face it, if we heard her calling Diane Dimond “honey bunny” we would laugh; I know I would!). But that kind of personality can be a two-edged sword, and as we learned from this interview, she is just as capable of turning it on MJ supporters as MJ haters.

Michael With Joanna Thomae, A Girl I'm Convinced Was One Of His Many Low Key Affairs
Michael With Joanna Thomae, A Girl I’m Convinced Was One Of His Many Low Key Affairs

I wasn’t too terribly shocked by the “asexual” comment, although I agree with some that she is really not helping Michael’s case by feeding into these very public myths, stereotypes, and misconceptions about him. Why? Because this feeds into the public caricature, and while it may to some extent “defend” him against the allegations of child sex abuse, it nevertheless does him a huge disservice by pigeonholing him as “weird” and “different”-again, feeding right into the caricature. I really feel this misconception comes from her association with Mesereau, who of course used the “asexual” angle to some extent quite successfully as a defense angle in the trial. Mesereau came into Michael’s life at a time when he had no serious relationships, and perhaps there was an advantage to convincing a jury that he was asexual (certainly preferable to the alternative). It’s no surprise that Jones, a friend of Mesereau’s who spent many months listening to his arguments in court, may have fallen under this belief as well.

I am not saying this in any way to denigrate Thomas Mesereau, for whom I have the utmost respect. I believe he did what had to be done to convince a jury of Michael’s innocence. But it still begs the question I always come back to: Why, with Michael, did it have to be a choice of apples or oranges? Couldn’t it be just as possible for him to have been a normal man with normal desires, and still be innocent of pedophilia?

I read on one forum where someone was questioning all of the heterosexual porn that was found during the raid on Neverland. How could Aphrodite Jones possibly believe Michael was asexual when she sat there in court and heard about all of that porn being found?

That is certainly a good question. However, it may be worth keeping in mind that people defined as “asexual”-in its strictest sense-are not people who do not have sexual urges. In fact, an asexual person may amass even more porn than what is generally considered “normal.” You see, it’s not the urges that the asexual person is devoid of. What the asexual person fears-or is revolted by-is intimacy with other human beings. In that case, the porn and masturbation becomes a kind of substitute for real life relationships.

Michael’s porn collection-just by its sheer size-has sometimes given me pause for thought. However, it seems from much testimony and what is generally known (both in the guise of urban myth and actual fact) that he did have numerous relationships throughout his life. Therefore, the idea of him having some sort of irrational fear of intimacy (as most asexuals do) hardly seems to apply.

I think it is far more likely that, as a man who seemed to have issues with serious relationships-not to mention strict religious convictions against casual relationships (though I do not think this was as much of a factor in his later years)-he may have preferred to retreat to his fantasy world rather than dealing with all the up’s and down’s and frustrations of casual relationships-after all, a Playboy or Barely Legal model can’t squeal to the press, nor is she going to conveniently “forget” her birth control and try to make you clothe or feed it later.

When all is said and done, we simply don’t know and-had it not been for the humiliating experience of that trial-none of this would be up for public consumption, anyway.

So enough of that. Back to Aphrodite Jones.

In the end, we have to remember that even though she calls herself a fan, she is still, first and foremost, a journalist. Perhaps the question we have to ask now is: Given that she has been, and remains, such an important public figure in staunchly advocating Michael’s innocence in the 2005 case, do we look the other way if she publicly admits to having doubts about the ’93 case, or do we take no quarter?

Personally, it has never been an issue for me if I do not agree with every position held by Michael’s defenders. For example, I certainly do not agree with Charles Thomson on many issues. But I respect him because of the outstanding journalistic work he has done on behalf of Michael’s innocence. I certainly do not have to agree with Aphrodite Jones on all issues, either. But I think what is really bothering me most about this is simply, as stated, the sheer inconsistency of it. No matter how she dices it, what she is saying now is not what she told us in 2007, nor throughout any of the six years since. Had she always maintained a position of someone who had doubts about the ’93 case, while defending him against the 2005 case, then her words now wouldn’t be such a shock.

It really begs the question: If this is how she truly feels, why did she not write any of this in 2007, when questioning Michael’s innocence was still the hip thing to do, and might have even helped garner her book a major publisher? Instead, she gives the impression, like Wade Robson, of someone who is only just now conveniently changing her story. But why?

In the interview, she speaks very admiringly of not wanting to contribute to the cesspool of people selling Michael out. I admire her stance on refusing to sell out his medical records and personal information. I also have a very vivid memory of how emotional she became in 2010 when she talked about visiting his home in Gary, and how hard worked to achieve a place like Neverland, only to have it taken from him. Her love and admiration for Michael is very sincere; of that I do not doubt. But then, why single handedly throw him under the bus in the next breath? Even if her words were totally off the cuff, she had to know the impression that using words like “I believe he was in love with that boy” would create.

Again, I am very saddened and dismayed; saddened to be writing such words about a journalist whom I have long admired, and a person I grew to actually like during our brief time together three years ago.

I hope that, perhaps in the future, she will come forward and clarify her statements. I feel she owes the fan community that much. After all, we have invested a lot of support in her and her book.

Every Fan Should Recognize This...The Beautiful Bridge To Neverland. I Am Posting This Image As A Reminder. Sometimes We Are Too Quick To Burn Our Bridges, And Have Almost Alienated Many Of Our Best MJ Supporters. Let's Not Go That Path Again.
Every Fan Should Recognize This…The Beautiful Bridge To Neverland. I Am Posting This Image As A Reminder. Sometimes We Are Too Quick To Burn Our Bridges, And Have Almost Alienated Many Of Our Best MJ Supporters. Let’s Not Go That Path Again.

By the same token, I would, as always, encourage fans to behave with modesty, respect, and restraint. Sometimes we are too quick to burn bridges. Aphrodite Jones has done outstanding work on Michael’s behalf, and we should not forget that. I haven’t seen any indication, certainly not from this interview, that she has “turned traitor” as some are accusing her.

However, do I think she used a poor choice of words? Yes. Do I find her statements odd and contradictory, given everything she has written and said up to this point? Yes. Do I think the fan community has plenty of good reason to question her at this point? Yes.

I certainly would not put her in the same wagon with people like Wade Robson. However, with so many of Michael’s supporters turning traitor in the last few years (with Wade Robson being only the most recent and notorious) it certainly leaves an unpleasant taste.

I think that, as fans and advocates of Michael Jackson, we like to think that there are at least a handful of individuals and people in the media with whom we can invest our trust, faith, and goodwill.

Once those three qualities are tarnished-however small the quantity-the damage is done.


112 thoughts on “Thoughts On Aphrodite Jones's King Jordan Radio Show Interview”

  1. Thanks, Raven. I have the same question…why now? I will be interested in Tom’s thoughts on this..he’ll be on the same radio show scheduled in early January. As Ms. Jones clearly thinks very highly of Mesereau, I’m certain she is aware of his oft repeated statement that the 2005 trial offered full vindication for his client…including what
    happened in 93.

    1. I have never heard from him any indication that he had reason to be worried about June Chandler’s testimony.

      One good thing about the 2005 trial is that, while the Chandlers may never have had their day in court in ’93, this did provide an opportunity of sorts for them to be put on the witness stand, even if only via June, and to test just how well their story actually stood up under scrutiny.

      My biggest issue with Aphrodite Jones right now is that she painted one picture of June’s testimony in 2007, and is now (it seems) painting quite another.

      It makes everything else she has ever said now seem questionable.

  2. As fans, perhaps we invest too much gratitude, trust, and confidence in any journalist or commentator who has nice things to say about Michael. I’m surprised by Aphrodite’s statement, but not blown away by it. I noticed early on that, no matter how blunt and engaging she may be in private conversation, in television interviews, she has a tendency to mumble and fumble ineffectively. She has never defended Michael bluntly and unambiguously on air. Tom Mesereau has, but even he has spouted odd statements about MJ’s sexuality, and that he had “two white children and one Hispanic child”. After Charles Thomson was unmasked as the poison pen behind MJ Star, despite his stellar defense of Michael now, and Wade’s cray cray claims, it should be clear that we can’t be 100% sure about anybody.

    Michael Jackson is such an immense cultural icon, and such a threatening presence, it’s to be expected that his life will engender myths and lies. No way do I believe that Aphrodite Jones’ memory has improved over the years. But she, like so many others, may have developed a need to try to cut MJ down to size.

    1. You are right. One interesting thing I’ve noted about the fan community over the past four years is that fans tend to universally embrace certain individuals (usually because they have spoken positively about MJ or have contributed to his vindication) while universally villifying others (sometimes deservedly so; other times, perhaps, because of one “off” comment which may have been taken out of context). When we place too much confidence in certain individuals, we are bound to be disappointed when they don’t always live up to our every expectation.

      What I have slowly come to realize when it comes to journalists/media people and MJ is that I just have to learn to take what I can use, and politely discard that which I don’t have to agree with.

      Charles Thomson has said many times that he was disappointed with Michael in the early 2000’s; he didn’t like the direction his music was going; he didn’t like Invincible. He has also questioned and been forthright about other areas of Michael’s life that he does not agree with. I’ve debated him many times on subjects ranging from Michael’s surgeries, to drug use, to music. But in the grander scheme of things, does it really matter whether or not he thinks Invincible is a great album, when he is capable of writing a piece like “The Most Shameful Episode in Journalism History?” What Charles does best is vindicating Michael’s innocence. I can take or leave the rest.

      I think one problem is when journalists do sort of cross that line from being impartial journalists to true vindicators, or even fans. There is nothing wrong, of course, with being a fan of someone. Journalists are human, too. But once a journalist has a reputation as a “fan” or as someone who is universally embraced by the fan community, it creates two problems. 1: They lose credibility with the mainstream, and 2:They then pigeonhole themselves to the point where, if the fan community has become their primary audience, they may not want to risk alienating that audience.

      To some extent, this is what has happened in Jones’s case. True, her reputation hasn’t been solely based on her Michael Jackson work. But as we saw from this radio interview, the biggest majority of the callers came from Michael Jackson fans. She became embraced by the fans because of Conspiracy. But now she is in a position where, if she expresses the least bit of impartiality or doubt, she is going to alienate that audience. (We are seeing it already, just in the wave of reactions to this one interview). Part of the dilemma stems from the fact that we start to look up to these people as our spokespeople. These are the people we like to feel we can trust to set the record straight-and God knows there are few enough of them. They can be counted, literally, on one hand.
      When we can’t even count on these people to get it right-or to even get through one interview without a major stumbling block that is going to leave a bitter aftertaste-it really does start to beg the question: Who can we trust?

      Yet as we see even among the blogosphere, the opinions among us are very diverse. If even no two fans can agree on every issue, then it is unrealistic to expect that every journalist will always say exactly what we want to hear. As you have said, I think the key is to not invest too much trust in any one individual. We just have to take the good with the bad in some cases.

      As I have said, my biggest issue with Jones’s statements is that it goes against the grain of everything she has said about June Chandler and that case up to this point. It begs the question: Why the about face, and why now?

      However, we probably should remember that her advocacy of Michael also came as an about face. She has said that she believed he was guilty going into the trial. What’s more, she STILL believed he was guilty even after five months of sitting through all of that testimony. It was only in the aftermath, when she went back through the transcripts, that she was finally able to let go of her bias and look at the case with open eyes.

      If she could so thoroughly change her opinion then, I suppose she could just as easily do it now.

      I remember one of the things we discussed was the then recent turning of the fan community against Charles Thomson. She was in total disbelief when I said some fans were turning on Charles. She asked why, and I explained about the whole MJ Star thing-or tried to. I didn’t make much headway because she interrupted me two-thirds of the way in and whipped out a recent hit piece by Andrea Peyser. She said in no uncertain terms that THIS was the kind of person-and the kind of articles-we needed to be worrying about.

      I played that conversation over and over in my own mind as I was writing this, and it is why I stressed that even though I’m disturbed by her comments, I still would prefer to focus on the good work she has done and to stress the importance of not burning those bridges.

      Charles Thomson almost gave up writing on MJ completely in the aftermath of what happened, and really, who could blame him?

      I guess my point is that we don’t-or shouldn’t-want to alienate every positive voice for Michael in the media.

      On the other hand, that doesn’t always mean blindly turning the other cheek, either. Jones’s comments have left many understandably confused, and I do think she should clarify them-and also why she is now contradicting that chapter of her own book.

  3. great article. God, will the slander and skewering of Michael Jackson ever end?! Do you know if anyone has confronted her with some of the excellent information on the extortion farce that was 1993, such as Mary Fisher’s article and the document Deborah Kunesh has on her ROTD website? How about the statements Mesereau has made about the falseness of those charges?
    I agree that Michael has to be one hell of a threat to continue being slashed at so long after his death

    1. She is aware of those sources. To what extent she has researched them, I couldn’t say. We have to remember that she is actually colleagues with many of these people, and part of their same inner circle. So, of course, she knows about the info that is out there. I just don’t think she has bothered to research the ’93 case much, other than what she witnessed in court and perhaps what Mesereau has filled her in on.

  4. Your article speaks fairly.
    I do, however, disagree with the author quite strongly on one point:

    “I really don’t know what planet Jones is from, but on planet earth, it is generally conceded that only a pedophile-or at least a hebephile-can be “in love” with a 13-year-old boy. Whether or not any sex ever occurred is really beside the point.”

    That’s a rather judgmental and limiting statement.
    I think it is quite easy for a lonely, soulful, aesthetically inclined artist who responds strongly to beauty in many forms to “fall in love” with a beautiful talented child who obviously emulates him, makes him laugh, is a delight to watch and fun to be with, and for a while fills the hole in his soul that ultimately leads him to satisfying and loving fatherhood three times over. He needed to be needed as well and Jordie needed a father-figure. Could MJ be a father figure without imbuing his relationship with honest love? That’s a good question for Frank Cascio, I think.
    Just my opinion.

    1. Stanley,
      You are exactly right about Michael’s love for Jordie. My younger brother had three little girls and they were so beautiful that I was just infatuated with them. And, I was a mature, married woman! Michael was very affectionate and as you said loved what he perceived as beauty. There is a YT video of him with a beautiful little girl on his lap during a photo shoot on the Black or White set. Michael just keeps kissing and hugging her, just like I did with my nieces. They were just adorable!

      (Her name is Sage (she is grown now and tells her story about Mike on YT also).

    2. Calling a fatherly love that MJ may or may not have had for Jordan “falling in love” is a slippery slope – especially with a person who’s been accused of molesting children.

      This whole “MJ fell in love with Jordan” idea comes from the Chandlers with the obvious drection it points to. I wonder if Aphrodite Jones read Taraborelli’s book or Randall Sullivan’s book because that idea is in both. Both books used Ray Chandler as a source for the Chandler allegations part, so no this idea obviously isn’t about some fatherly love. It also did not seem like it’s about fatherly love in the context AJ talked in (ie. about allegations of sexual abuse).

      1. Aprodite Jones did mention (and recommend) Taraborelli’s book in the acknowledgement section of MJ Conspiracy. I haven’t read his book myself, but I’ve heard it is… not the best resource, to put it lightly.

    3. She didn’t explain it in that context, however. Had she done so, it certainly would have made a lot of difference in how I perceived the comment, as I’m sure it would have for all other listeners as well.

    4. One other thing I wished to add to further clarify my point. There is a huge difference between loving someone and being “in love” with them. Certainly an adult can love a child, in the same way a parent or grandparent loves a child. I definitely do believe Michael loved Jordan in a father-son kind of way.

      But the phrase “in love” is usually reserved for adult relationships; the kind between heterosexual or homosexual couples. It denotes romantic/sexual love.

      Aphrodite Jones deliberately used the term “in love” knowing full well the connotation it carries. If she did mean it in a different way, she should have clarified that or chosen her words more carefully.

      1. Remember that Michael Jackson told Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that he was “in love” with Fred Astaire. Not everyone, and not even Michael, necessarily chooses their words with an eye toward what “most people,” or fans or detractors, will be saying five or ten years down the road.

        I have no problem with the idea that Michael loved, or was “in love with,” adolescent boys.

        Again, I find myself baffled as to what everyone seems to want and expect from the press. By and large, it’s the television journalists and the FANS THEMSELVES who are keeping this story about Michael’s alleged pedophilia and/or child molestation alive. I can’t help but wonder why people who purport to be deeply concerned about Michael’s OVERALL legacy add this sort of fuel to the fire, when reputable writers—I mean, people who are broadly interested in cultural developments—have long since moved on to discussions of his unique contributions to the world of popular music, dance, and entertainment.

        1. And as much as some of us would like to believe the world has moved on from the allegations, unfortunately it’s not true at all. Just an example. Last weekend Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton decided to tribute Michael by wearing a helmet with Michael’s picture on it. I went to his Facebook. There were lots of comments who liked it, but then the other half of the comments bashed Hamilton for “putting a pedophile” on his helmet, saying things like “What’s next? You will put Jimmy Savile on your helmet?”. Whether we put our head in the sand about it or not, the allegations hang over Michael’s legacy like a big shadow and they are the stumbling block for many, many people when it comes to Michael.

          1. That is so true. You can go to the comments section of most any article on Michael-even ones that are very positive-and read just some of the ugliest comments made by ignorant people. They can’t even let an article on his music or positive contributions go without putting in their two cents.

            Of course, I do believe these people are a much smaller minority who, due to the advantages and anonymity of the internet, make themselves appear larger and more threatening in number than they actually are. A lot of the nastiest comments that appear with most well publicized articles are actually from the same faction, who use many multiple identities and sock puppets to make it appear as if there are more of them than they actually are. If you read carefully between the lines, you can see they are usually the same ones over and over.

        2. You can’t tell me that Aphrodite Jones, a journalist and writer who certainly understands the power of words, didn’t understand the connotation of her words, especially in the CONTEXT with which she was speaking them. That is a WORLD of difference between someone saying they are “in love” with a certain actor or mentor. This isn’t some big cultural difference or misunderstanding of communication.

          “Could” it have been poor, off the cuff phrasing? Possibly. But again, given the context of what she was saying and the overall direction of the conversation, I don’t think so. And I don’t buy that what she said and how she meant it is anything remotely resembling what Michael meant when he said he was “in love” with Fred Astaire.

          Again, context and connotation are everything. But yes, as we know, Michael himself was capable of some pretty big gaffes in live interviews. “What’s wrong with sharing your bed?” is the classic example. Again, the problem was that there was a huge disconnect between how Michael intended the phrase, and how it was taken by the public at large. We can argue all day the power of semantics, cultural differences and how it may all come down to people having dirty minds and being unusually preoccupied with sex, but in the end, it is what it is.

          As always, I write about the subjects that are of interest to me as an MJ fan-the things that are on my mind at any given time. Sometimes that may be his art and music and those cultural aspects. Other times, it may be the current topics of concern that everyone is talking about, which are usually the controversial ones. I have to stay true to myself and what this blog is about. I can’t focus on a discussion of Michael’s music when, in the back of my mind, I’m seething or feeling a heavy heart over what has once again been put “out there” in the media. Perhaps some can do that. It’s not me. I usually have to at least address these things before I can move on.

          Of course, these things do tend to sink to the bottom over time, and yes, obviously, fans are usually the ones who end up focusing the most attention on them. But another way to look at that is because we are the ones who care most that the truth is put out there, and who have the most invested in it. Others aren’t paying attention because they simply don’t care, and at this point, what is one more black mark against MJ to them?

          I believe that “what can we expect from the press?” is the consensus a lot of us have arrived at in regards to this story, which is why I’m reminding readers that we can only expect so much from journalists, even those who are generally supportive. The fact is, we are not going to agree with everything they feel and say about Michael, and perhaps at some point, we just have to make peace with that fact. Everyone, in the end, has to make their own peace with what they can and cannot personally tolerate. Some, like I said, are always going to take the “no quarter” approach-either someone is 100% “for” Michael’s innocence, or they are not for it at all.

          Some would call what Aphrodite Jones said in that interview balanced and fair. Others are calling it an absolute betrayal.

          I do not see it so much as a betrayal but as something that very much puzzles me given all that she has written and said about June and the Chandler case in the past.

          Given what happened with Charles Thomson a few years ago, I think the subject of just how much trust we, as fans, invest in certain journalists is certainly a topic worthy of addressing. For example, look at how tirelessly we support, promote, and link to every interview featuring these people. Before the Aphrodite Jones interview aired, I must have received dozens of links to it in my email alone. Why do we do this? I think because fans feel they can trust these people to give reliable, truthful information. Therefore, it’s easy to feel betrayed when that doesn’t quite pan out.

          So perhaps the answer is to stop investing so much, and just accept that these people are human with the same diversity of opinions as all of us-some we will agree with; others we won’t. Then, if they do deliver a big and shocking gaffe, at least it doesn’t deliver quite the punch.

          We have to remember that there is a big majority out there who see journalists like Aphrodite Jones, Charles Thomson, and Mary Fisher as being just as biased as we view people like Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth. And even Diane Dimond has-on very rare occasions-conceded to some facts she simply could not argue away.

          I am still working through my own reactions to this interview and how I feel about what was said. And that’s a large part of what I do here. You can actually see me, often, writing my way through current issues of concern and digesting how I feel about them. If you go back through the history of the blog, you can see for yourself how many of my thoughts and feelings have evolved and changed over the last four years, often as I learn more or as more is revealed. But sometimes, too, just as a result of living and learning and adjusting expectations.

        3. No doubt there are a handful of these lame folks who have nothing better to do with their time than to skulk around internet sites and put in their two cents’ worth of ignorant comments whenever an article on Michael Jackson appears.

          Who believes them? Who takes them seriously? As you say, Raven, they are a tiny minority. Do they really have the power to influence public opinion in any significant way? Why permit them to take up residence in our own minds?

          The “whole world” isn’t necessarily watching. Much of the world, in fact, probably isn’t invested one way or another about anything to do with Michael Jackson, who is quite remote from most people’s thoughts.

          After all, a majority of the world’s population doesn’t spend nearly the amount of time thinking and reading about Michael Jackson as we diehards do. It’d do us well to remember that from time to time: to get outside of ourselves and our obsessions long enough to gain a realistic perspective, even if none of us can hope to attain the impossible stance that’s sometimes called *objectivity.*

      2. “I have no problem with the idea that Michael loved, or was “in love with,” adolescent boys.”

        I absolutely have a problem with that idea, because to say of someone who’s been accused of molesting boys that he was “in love” with adolescent boys does not help our case at all. On the contrary. Such wordings suggests Michael was a pedophile after all. It’s creepy to put it that way about a guy who has been accused of molesting young boys. It does not suggest fatherly love.

        Like Raven said “in love” has a certain romantic/sexual connotation. Especially when you talk about sex abuse allegations you should choose your words more carefully if you only mean fatherly love (which I’m not sure at all that’s how AJ meant it). In that context it’s absolutely NOT the same as when Michael said he was “in love” with Fred Astaire (obviously with his artistry).

        I’m not going to excuse AJ for it, because it’s not up to me to clarify her words if she did not really mean “in love” as in the romantic/sexual sense. Now haters are using her words to push their propaganda against Michael. That’s how unfortunate the wording is.

        1. I also find that statement troubling. To say that MJ might have been “in love” with Jordan is problematic enough, for the reasons discussed here. But at least Jordan was an individual and there was an actual relationship of some kind.

          But the terms “loved boys”, and “in love with adolescent boys”, emphasis on the plural, implies sexual objectification of children, which most people find unhealthy, and even downright disgusting. Statements like that are even worse than AJ’s remark.

  5. Remember, both Jordie and Gavin were adolescents when powerful authority figures coerced them to make accusations, (with Jordie more innocent than Gavin). Grown men wither under police intimidation and attorney questioning. How is a 12, 13, or even 14-year old gonna be able stand up to that? I assure you they can’t. One day, when this is understood, maybe fans will forgive them and lay the blame where it belongs-on the parents, and in some ways, on Michael too. Then maybe, Jordan will feel safe enough to emerge and tell his story. It has to be hard to remain silent when he is the only person alive who can exonerate Michael, once and for all.

    1. There is a part of me that pities Jordan and Gavin as children. But as adults they have shown no inclination to change their story. In all honesty, I don’t think Jordan is fearful of fans, and the one person he probably had most reason to fear-his dad-is dead. I think he has simply grown quite cozy with the comfortable life he has made off of his lie, and is content to let the truth die with him.

      Besides, as many have pointed out, even if Jordan recanted his story today, the haters would simply call him a liar and try every which way to discredit him. In fact, I daresay he would have more to fear from THEM, as he would then be the target of their unrelenting hate and harassment. They would do to him what I have seen them do to all of Michael’s other young friends who have staunchly defended him and denied any wrongdoing, such as Brett Barnes, Jimmy Safechuck, Corey Feldman, and so on, only it would probably be a hundred times worse for Jordan.

      1. I personally can not see Jordan recanting his story; why should he? He got an out of court settlement for Godsake and since 1993 two more boys have accused Michael. Jordan probably thinking what is the point of changing perceptions, now. Apart from the ardent fans no one seem to know the story behind the story and nor do many people want to.

        But what I can see happening, however, is someone who is close to Jordan such as his sister, Lilly, coming out and telling a completely different story. Apparently, she recently posted a picture of herself and Michael on her facebook page, although she took it down again. I find such actions very telling.

  6. This is one of the best MJ websites, simply because unlike other websites about Michael it looks at things with a balance prospective as opposed to a solely fans point of view. I don’t know why Aphrodite changed her tune on the Jordan Chandler case, probably she looked at the transcripts again and put a different interpretation on them. But this just shows that it is the 1993 case and the settlement that will be the main reason why there will alway be a cloud over MJ legacy. I understand why that settlement was made but in all honesty that case should have been fought in court because as we saw later and we are seeing now from Wade Robson, it has meant anyone can claim that MJ has abused them and expect some financial settlement.

  7. I would not have had a problem with AJ saying “I did not investigate the 1993 case, so I can’t comment on that” and just leave it at that. It would be fair enough. However her comment on MJ “falling in love with Jordan Chandler” is disturbing indeed. And I just don’t know where it comes from. She says June’s testimony is all of a sudden “unnevrving” when she said otherwise in her book, like you pointed out. But even June never claimed on the stand that MJ was in love in Jordan, (or that she witnessed molestation, for that matter), so where does that come from? That MJ spent a lot of time with the Chandlers at the time? And that can be only explained with MJ being in love with Jordan?

    It’s the Chandlers who try to portray themselves as some really special family in Michael’s life but they weren’t at all. MJ’s relationship with that family was not unlike his relationship with any other families. This myth about Jordan being someone really special to him was built by the Chandlers, but it’s not true at all. It’s also the Chandlers who can’t stop emphasizing Jordan’s “good looks” (and Evan’s as well, for that matter – Evan is described in their book as “a better looking Rob Lowe”, LOL). When Ray Chandler did his media tours he made remarks about what a good-looking guy Jordan was, that “he looks like a male model” etc. Again, with the obvious insinuation that he must have been irresistable for Michael Jackson. This is, BTW, consistent with what Carrie Fisher wrote in her book about Evan boasting about Jordan’s good looks to her in a very creepy way back in 1993. So this whole idea of MJ “being in love with Jordan” does come from creepy Evan/Ray Chandler!

    AJ says the disturbing part in June’s testimony to her was that story about Michael “crying, shaking, trembling” amonst demands that June let Jordan sleep in his bed in a hotel room on a Las Vegas visit. But why does she feel inclined to give credit to June on this when she well spotted contradictions and convenient memory lapses otherwise in her testimony? How come that about this story June all of a sudden becomes credible?

    And this is where it becomes a real shame that AJ has not researched anything else besides the 2005 trial. What was said there about the Chandler case was only the tip of the iceberg. Had AJ researched the 1993 case as well then she would have found that this story is actually contradicted by none other than Jordan himself!

    According to June Chandler’s 2005 testimony that night Michael and Jordan went to see a Cirque du Soleil performance and when they came back Michael insisted on Jordan sleeping in his bedroom. According to June Chandler when she refused Michael kept insisting on it “sobbing, crying, shaking, trembling” to which June gave in and let Jordan sleep in Michael’s bedroom for the first time.

    However, in an interview that psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner conducted with Jordan on October 6, 1993 the boy said he and Michael watched the horror movie The Exorcist that night and Michael, because Jordan was scared, offered to let Jordan sleep in his room. According to Jordan’s version it was AFTER that night when he told his mother about HAVING SLEPT in Michael’s bedroom and that is when there was a confrontation about it between June and Michael – so in the hindsight of Jordan spending a night in Michael’s bedroom and not before. On cross examination June also admitted that it was Jordan, who wanted to stay in Jackson’s bedroom. In any case, there was no claim of physical contact occurring between Jordan and Michael on that trip. From the Court Transcripts and Mesereau’s cross-examination we also learn that that the conversation in question revolved around trust issues.

    10 Q. Did you have any problem at that time

    11 letting your son go to Cirque du Soleil with Mr.

    12 Jackson?

    13 A. No.

    14 Q. And did your son stay with Mr. Jackson that

    15 evening, to your knowledge?

    16 A. To my knowledge, yes.

    17 Q. Okay. You told the prosecutor that Mr.

    18 Jackson got upset at one point about your not

    19 trusting him, right?

    20 A. Correct.

    21 Q. And he said words to you to the effect that,

    22 “We’re family,” right?

    23 A. Correct.

    24 Q. You suggested that you let Jordie sleep

    25 wherever he wants to sleep, right?

    26 A. Yes.

    27 Q. And you told him, “Look, I’ve had two

    28 husbands that I can’t trust,” right? 5689

    1 A. Correct.

    2 Q. You said, “I think you’re a wonderful

    3 person, but I can’t let my trust down,” right?

    4 A. Correct.

    5 Q. And you described Michael as saying that he

    6 was going to take care of you, right?

    7 A. No.

    8 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, excuse me, I’m

    9 going to object as vague as to point in time of the

    10 conversation.

    11 MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Sure.

    12 Q. When was the conversation where Michael got

    13 upset because he didn’t think you trusted him?

    14 A. In Las Vegas in the hotel room.

    15 Q. Okay. You said to Michael, “I’ve had males

    16 in my life that, you know, have disappointed me.

    17 How can I have you in my life and you’re saying that

    18 you’re going to take care of us, that you’re so

    19 wonderful, everything’s going to be okay, how am I

    20 going to do that?”

    21 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

    22 object to counsel reading from the document.

    23 MR. MESEREAU: I haven’t finished the

    24 question yet, Your Honor.

    25 MR. SNEDDON: Well, he’s reading —

    26 THE COURT: Well, all right, what is the

    27 question?

    28 MR. MESEREAU: I was going to ask her if she 5690

    1 made that statement.

    2 THE COURT: All right. You may.

    3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you make a statement

    4 to that effect?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. And Michael said to you he wanted a family

    7 to just treat him like a regular person, right?

    8 A. Correct.

    9 Q. He said he didn’t want to be like a

    10 stranger, right?

    11 A. Correct.

    12 Q. And he asked you to trust him, right?

    13 A. Yeah.

    It seems like Michael Jackson cried because he felt June did not trust him, rather than throwing a hissy fit amongst demands to let Jordan sleep in his bedroom – like the prosecution initially attempted to portray this incident with the help of June. But, like stated above, according to Jordan’s own version the incident actually happened after Jordan had already slept in Michael’s room and according to what came out during Mesereau’s cross-examination it was generally about trust issues.

    When there are two contradictory versions of the same story by the same party then the authenticity of that story should be at least questioned. And we haven’t even heard Michael’s version.

    1. The way that whole family described Jordan as a child really creeps me out. Yes, he was a very attractive child (and, for that matter, grew into a very physically attractive man) but that is beside the point. That whole family really carried on like a bunch of pimps.

      Let’s not forget it was someone within the family (Ray claims it was June’s sister) who sold their story to The National Enquirer, making themselves out to be Michael’s adopted family.

      While I do believe he was very close to them for awhile, I am one of those inclined to believe it had more to do with his feelings for June. I know not everyone adheres to this theory, but the fact is that most everyone-apparently, including Evan and June’s sister, believed there was something between them. Over time, they simply shifted his affections from June to Jordan because it better suited their new narrative.

      1. I don’t believe he was that good looking. Sneddon even tried to claim Brett and Jordan looked so much alike it explained why one witness changed their story from having seen MJ abuse Brett to having really witnessed Jordan being abused.

        For me the people who insist on his looks are his gross family members who try to make out like he was irresistible. It’s beyond disturbing.

      2. I was reading June Chandler testimony recently and it seemed to me , that MJ was upset because Jordan must have told him he wanted to join the other kids who watched tv at night in mj bedroom and his mother wouldnt let him , because he is talking about kids staying in his room and they have fun.
        He doesnt seem to me to be begging for Jordan to stay in his bedroom with him, I think he is advocating for Jordan because she wont let him hang out with all the kids at night, he has to stay in the bungalow at Neverland and he has been asking to stay with the kids.
        That to me is why Jordan was very quiet when MJ brought it up..I think he was putting MJ on the spot, to override his mother.
        Im not so sure if there was ever an Exorcist movie, as that doesnt seem to line up..June only says she was told about it.
        She is walking a tight rope, in her testimony as , she is trying to defend herself as a good and vigilant mom , which would make her son look like a liar, or she has to look like a mother ,who allowed her son to be abused.
        As far as June saying she couldnt trust another man in her life, these were adult relationship issues, not having to do with MJ and Jordan, the way I understand it.
        He says he will be there for her, and the next day he gets that LOVE cartier bracelet, which she describes in very general terms , even though it seems to be a gift given between lovers , with a key or a screwdriver to place on the womans wrist and lock it on… and starts making the effort to show up at her house and have dinner with her and her children..
        It sounds like he decided to make a commitment to her and her children
        He is also leaving open boxes of jewelry on her bed, for her to find.
        That sounds kind of intimate to me.
        Her children arent always there when they are having dinner
        And Sneddon doesnt call the live in maid , to testify..
        So he stays with June and her children at her house and by the time they go to Monaco, June, to me , looks enthralled with him, not suspicious of him.

        If you read the conversation that Evan was having with Mr Schwartz, he mentions LMP and he could be concerned that June and Jordy are going to lose MJ to LMP, which would have been devastating, for both of them

        But anyway, if Ms Jones would consider the fact that MJ might have been a straight man , she might have gotten a different impression with what June was saying
        She also let her initial remarks regarding junes testimony stand when she did the updated version of the book..
        Her comments just seemed to come out of left field.

        1. That was somewhat my impression of AJ as well when we discussed June Chandler. I think she has pretty much closed her mind to anything (and any possibility) other than the asexual narrative.

          1. Raven, did anyone ask AJ if she could expplain her statements. That would only be fair.
            If you are still in contact with her, maybe you could ask her?.

          2. I have not remained in contact with her but, of course, there are ways to reach her. The only thing I would really like to know is why what she is saying now is so contradictory to what she has said and maintained in her book and in past interviews.

            As expected, haters have already jumped the bandwagon on this, proclaiming on Topix and elsewhere that Aphrodite Jones has said she believed Michael molested Jordan. That is twisting things way out of proportion and out of context. She never said that and it is very misleading for them to be tooting that as if it is fact. She said she has a question mark.

            Also, they are now trying to make the lame argument that Aphrodite Jones has always believed he was guilty and was simply milking fans to get their money. This makes no sense on many levels. There was NOTHING for her to gain by writing a pro-MJ book in the aftermath of the trial, and the money she has made on a self-published book from fans’ purchases is peanuts compared to what she could have made selling it through a major publisher. Secondly, she has not now, or ever, recanted her stance on the Arvizo case, which is what the book was about and what her reputation among the fan community has been built on.

            One of them quoted Diane Dimond as saying that AJ told her every day of the trial how guilty she thought he was. Again, a lame argument considering Jones has never made any secret of the fact that she thought he was guilty right up until the verdict was read.

            These people are sick in how hard they work to twist, manipulate and distort truth.

  8. As for the “asexual” part, I find that less damaging even if IMO it’s a wrong assumption on many people’s part. But I’d rather have people believe he was asexual (nothing wrong with asexuality) than a pedophile. However, I agree that it can also be harmful, because it generally can be used to feed into the caricature. And well, because it’s not true.

    I disagree though that Meserau played the asexual angle in court. I did not have that feeling. Actually in his closing argument he accused the prosecution of not knowing where they want to go with their portrayal of Michael’s sexuality, whether they want to portray him as gay or asexual or a pedophile. Mesereau himself did admit of Michael being interested in “girlie magazines” and reading such material. In his questioning of Wade Robson he asked Wade whether he thought Michael was asexual to which Wade answer no, he didn’t, he thought Michael was interested in women. It’s said a good lawyer only asks questions to which he knows what the answer would be.

    “That is certainly a good question. However, it may be worth keeping in mind that people defined as “asexual”-in its strictest sense-are not people who do not have sexual urges. In fact, an asexual person may amass even more porn than what is generally considered “normal.” You see, it’s not the urges that the asexual person is devoid of. What the asexual person fears-or is revolted by-is intimacy with other human beings. In that case, the porn and masturbation becomes a kind of substitute for real life relationships.”

    Well, like all areas of human sexual behavior it’s difficult to find a definition of asexuality that is accepted by everyone. Some would say only people who do not have sexual urges and aren’t interested in sex are true asexuals and what you describe here is rather just, well, a fear of intimacy – more than true asexuality. And that someone who has such a big porn collection is definitely not asexual, because he’s clearly interested in sex.

    I think the “asexual” thing was rather used by the prosecution as a straw-man argument. They tried to counter what they perceived as MJ having this clean-cut, asexual image, by showing his porn in court and asking: “does that look like some innocent, asexual guy to you?”. They just wanted to say with that IMO that his image (or rather what they wrongly assumed to be his image) was all a lie and instead of being asexual he was this “pervert” who was drawning in pornography. Well, the thing is MJ never claimed to be asexual, so that’s why that was a straw-man by the prosecution.

    1. ^^ Sorry, that question to Wade about whether he thought MJ was asexual was asked by the prosecution, not Mez. But that doesn’t change that I don’t think Mez tried to portray Michael as asexual in court.

    2. Yes, I agree. I never got the impression Mesereau played Michael as an asexual at all. He mocked the prosecution for using that angle after they’d try to claim he was both a pedophile and also gay.

      In his questioning of Wade Robson he asked Wade whether he thought Michael was asexual to which Wade answer no, he didn’t, he thought Michael was interested in women.

      Exactly and Mesereau was confident in that question, he wouldn’t have asked that if he’d felt Robson would say MJ was.

      1. I am torn on this because, on the one hand, Mesereau did say that. He also said, in reference to the porn, that all it proved was that Michael was a normal guy who liked to look at beautiful women.

        But in several media interviews, he has also played up the angle of Michael as a regressed child and has made other comments that would seem to play into the asexual narrative.

        I am not sure what his official stance is on the issue. Like Jones, I have found some of his statements a bit contradictory.

    3. You are right, and I did remember Mesereau making the comment (regarding the porn) that it proved Michael was a normal man who liked to look at beautiful women. But when commenting to the media, he has made some other rather strange comments, and has always played up the angle (it seems to me) of Michael as an asexual man-the whole “regressed child in a man’s body” angle. And let’s not forget his ardent endorsement of the Sullivan book, of which asexuality is one of its primary claims.

      I’ve done quite a bit of reading on asexuality, and apparently there is no one set definition that applies to everyone who considers themselves asexual. For some, it is an aversion to all things sexual and no drive whatsoever. For others, they may still have urges and may masturbate as a form of release, but have no desire for intimacy with others. Some are romantically attracted to persons of the same or opposite sex, but with no desire for physical contact. It seems there is still relatively little known about what exactly constitutes an asexual individual, or indeed whether it is even an actual orientation (or should be).

      The only point I was attempting to make is that, if Jones has convinced herself he was asexual, the pornography alone wouldn’t necessarily dissuade her from that opinion-in fact, may even have helped enforce it.

      It is not, nor has ever been, something I ascribe to personally. Was Michael conflicted about sex? Perhaps in his youth, when he was still very much steeped in his religious beliefs. I think he became less so as he matured and cut a lot of those binding ties. I have never bought into the whole “Michael was afraid of/repulsed by sex” scenario that has been perpetuated by Taraborelli, Sullivan, and the tabloids.

      The porn has been used both for and against Michael, in every which way imaginable. Those who believe him innocent like to point out how it proves he couldn’t possibly have been interested in children or boys. But I have seen the hater sites attempt to use it to paint a picture of a sexually depraved individual who, far from being this innocent Peter Pan-like man, was using it to groom boys. As usual, they have twisted every bit of evidence to suit their own narrative and their own agenda.

      1. “But when commenting to the media, he has made some other rather strange comments, and has always played up the angle (it seems to me) of Michael as an asexual man-the whole “regressed child in a man’s body” angle.”

        I don’t see that. I did see that from Robert Sager and Susan Yu, but not from Mesereau. Both Sager and Yu tried to distance Michael from the porn in interviews claiming that most weren’t even his, but we know that’s not true. We know that because most were found in places where no one else but Michael would keep his porn. I mean I doubt someone else kept his porn in Michael’s nightstand or in a box at the base of Michael’s bed. I doubt someone else would keep his porn in Michael’s bathroom or in suitcases that by all evidence were carried around by Michael, because it contained his stuff (notes written by him or sent to him etc.) And Michael’s fingerprints were found on those magazines. And in court the defense never claimed they weren’t Michael’s. Mesereau admitted they were his.

        My guess is that in TV interviews Sager and Yu felt the need to play down that angle, because they knew that the public (especially in the US) can be prudish about it.

        “And let’s not forget his ardent endorsement of the Sullivan book, of which asexuality is one of its primary claims.”

        I don’t think just because Mez endorsed Sullivan’s book he endorsed all claims and ideas in it. I mean then we should assume he also endorsed the part on the 1993 allegations which were inspired by Ray Chandler. Or he endorsed the proven lies Marc Schaffel and others said in that book. Or he endorsed tabloid claims which were quoted in that book as “fact”. I think Mez had a very narrow-minded view of that book. He only focused on the 2005 part to which he was interviewed. And that’s really what he endorsed.

        I personally don’t remember Mesereau ever saying or suggesting Michael was asexual. Definitely not in court.

    4. It was very unlikely that Michael was asexual, especially if you believe the stories about him and lisa marie. They sem to have had a very healthy sex life. However, the asexual angel obviously came from somewhere, most likely the lack of noticeable relationships with women, I really think the like of Brooke shields were more PR than anything else. Unlike some fans who try and turn Michael into some kind of playboy I believe his relationship with women were few but very intense and maybe a little forbidden.

      1. Photographer Ron Galella, who could be described as the first of the American paparazzi, got a photo of Michael kissing Brooke Shields in the back of a limousine, when there was no one around to see. While there was a definite PR value to their dating – and risk as well, because a black man with a white woman was controversial and inflammatory – it’s likely that there was some real feeling as well. Brooke distanced herself from MJ over the years, and she is probably embarrassed to admit the real extent of their connection.

        1. I am not saying there were no feelings at all between Brooke and Michael, they had know each other since she was 13 or 14, however for certain purposes there was a PR value to their relationship. I am more inclined to believe that he had a more long term, secret, relationship with Diane Ross than any intense relationship he may have had with Brooke Shields. In fact if he did have a relationship with Diana Ross that will explain alot about the lack visible women in his life. He was devoted to Diana to the very end, it was probably her that try to encourage him to be seen with the likes of Brooke Shields.

  9. ‘As fans, perhaps we invest too much gratitude, trust, and confidence in any journalist or commentator who has nice things to say about Michael. I’m surprised by Aphrodite’s statement, but not blown away by it.’ Simba
    I totally agree that we dont need to be grateful to someone just because they practice fairness, integrity and objectivety. They are not doing us or Michael a favor,but are just doing what is expected from journalists.
    Because for years fairness and objectivity was the exception and not the norm in reporting about MJ, does not mean that we have to embrace everyone who has something positive to say, most of the time to sell something to fans. I prefer that journalists do not take a fan approach, but write objectively, even if it sometimes is not what fans want to hear. And I do not mean that fans cannot write objectively.
    AJ was called a ‘fan girl’ because even imo she made statements that as an objective journalist she should not have made, even if they were in favor of Michael.
    To be honest of all the books I read the ones from people who take the fan approach are the weakest. And calling someone ‘hunny bunney’ is below any level of professionalism or common courtesy and is telling of her attitude.
    For the Chandlers as well as the Arvizo’s and Wade Robson goes that none of us were there, there are no witnesses, all we have are statements of the persons involved and circumstancial evidence. So we have to go by the probability that something did or didnt happen.
    Anything else, whether Michael had affairs, was asexual, had heterosexual porn and other armchair psychology is moot. It says absolutely nothing about whether someone is capable of molesting a child or not. The worst serial child molesters are married men with careers and ‘normal’ families, wellrespected in their community or are men of God.
    What counts is forensic evidence that comes as close to the truth as possible and the fact that one is innocent untill proven guilty.
    I dont think Wade Robson and Aphrodite Jones will be the last ones to change their tune. People will go with the tide and their agenda. More and more I am starting to realize that Michael is beyond the icon we witnessed during our lifetime. He has become a historic figure and a free for all, whose story will be told and coloured in many different ways, who even fans do not agree on. Except for one thing, that he did not commit those crimes. Instead of speculating about his sexuality it is important and more convincing to stick to the facts and what is documented that supports the one thing that fans agree on.

    1. In the Arvizo case Michael was on trial in front of the world and even the naysayers cannot deny that he was found not guilty on every single count. It is the Chandler case that many people still have doubts about. For AJ to throw even more doubt on a case she admits she has no knowledge of, is unforgivable.

    2. Anything else, whether Michael had affairs, was asexual, had heterosexual porn and other armchair psychology is moot.

      Yes, but people want the truth of his life told. And the fact he kept these things SECRET and didn’t blast them around the world makes them credible. He didn’t use these things to disguise anything.

      He also had two G spot articles, I don’t know why anyone afraid of “intimacy” with a woman would collect those.

      Both Lisa and Debbie have stated they had sex with him; Debbie did so again recently in fact.

      1. “He also had two G spot articles, I don’t know why anyone afraid of “intimacy” with a woman would collect those.”
        I dont know and cannot comment on Michaels sexlife or intimacy , but going by his ‘librabry ‘ he must have had a more than average interest in sex. He was a perfectionist and seemed as thourough about this subject as with any other subject that had his interest. 🙂

        “But the irony, as I have so often found, is that fans usually do far more research than most mainstream journalists”.
        Not only do fans do more research, but because of the different views and opinions and the ongoing discourse among fans( sometimes in circles) every single subject is looked at from every possible angle and more likely to be closer to the truth than what the media can produce.
        I just read Charles Thomson articke:Conjuring a Chorus of Boos; The Truth About Michael Jackson’s UK Comeback…cksons-uk.html
        It is about Michaels appearance at the WMA London 2006 and the inaccurate or downright false reports of the UK media.
        For Michael it was daily routine and if you look back at it, its unbelievable that it could have gone on for decades without a single medium reprimanded.

    3. “AJ was called a ‘fan girl’ because even imo she made statements that as an objective journalist she should not have made, even if they were in favor of Michael.”

      This was why I asked the question in 2010. I had read a review of the book that accused her of being a “fan girl” who was “smitten” with MJ. I admit that some of the language/phrasing in the book seemed to cross that line. Again, as I said in response to Simba, the problem is that once a journalist’s objectivity is called into question, they lose credibility with the mainstream. (But the irony, as I have so often found, is that fans usually do far more research than most mainstream journalists).

      I actually got a laugh out of her answer because, after going on and on for some time about being a “professional journalist,” etc, etc, etc she did have to admit, “Okay, maybe for about five seconds, I was smitten.”

      As I said, journalists are human, too, lol.

      But I understand what you’re saying. There are a few passages in that book that made ME cringe; I can imagine the effect they would have on an impartial reader.

      Yet I can also appreciate the very human approach she took. This was a woman witnessing, with her own eyes, a beautiful man’s ruination. I think in a way this may explain why the book did become more than just a dry, subjective account of events. She would note the way he walked; the way he carried himself on any given day; when he was upbeat; when he was down. If there was a twinge of being “smitten” in there-even if for all of five seconds-I can certainly forgive her that. For all that we may abhor what happened to Michael during that trial, we can’t deny there is something almost unbearably, heartbreakingly romantic about the figure Michael cut throughout that ordeal (and I mean romantic in the strictest, Byronic sense of the term).

      Good journalism, after all, isn’t always about being merely objective. As with all good writing, it is also about having the ability to “connect”; to tap into details that others may be too hurried (or in the case of the journalists covering that trial, too biased) to pick up on.

      Her account did cross the boundary at times but it also humanized Michael in a way that I don’t think a strictly objective account could have done.

      1. “Again, as I said in response to Simba, the problem is that once a journalist’s objectivity is called into question, they lose credibility with the mainstream.”

        However, the same mainstream does not seem to lose credibility with fellow journalists when they are biased in the other direction, as most clearly were… I mean you can be a mainstream journalist like Maureen Orth and claim absurd things in an article published by a mainstream magazine such as Vanity Fair – absurd things such as Michael took baths in cows’ blood on the Swiss border in a ritual to put a voodoo curse on Steven Spielberg, you can claim and publish that without any evidence and with a straight face and no one questions your credibility…

        Or you can use Victor Gutierrez as a source (as many publications and TV programs did) – a guy who openly advocated pedophilia and who’s been court ordered to pay Michael millions for lying on him. You can use him as a source and no one in the mainstream questions your credibility.

        You can pay off people to make up lies about Michael – as there is hard cold evidence of some of the media doing that, but no one in the mainstream questions your credibility.

        But God forbid Aphrodite Jones makes a personal remark about MJ in her book – that supposedly throws all her credibility out in the window for the mainstream. (But if your personal remarks about MJ are hateful, such as Orth’s, Dimond’s etc. that somehow does not make anyone question their impartiality and credibility.)

        But then this is the reality of life. The mainstream media has always been biased and hostile against Michael and always had this double standard, so yeah people who advocate for him better make sure to be as factual and matter-of-factly as possible. Because the mainstream media will always look for the last straw to discredit anyone who advocates for him.

        “I actually got a laugh out of her answer because, after going on and on for some time about being a “professional journalist,” etc, etc, etc she did have to admit, “Okay, maybe for about five seconds, I was smitten.””

        I wonder if this allegation of her being a “fan girl” is why she said what she said on the Chandler case. Thinking that she will have to throw in something less positive too in order to “balance out” that view of her being a fan girl.

        1. I am not saying it has happened, or will happened. Only that it’s a very distinct possibility.

          The sad reality is that we already know, for years, there has been a huge media bias against fair or balanced reporting on Michael. Just today, I was reading Thomson’s piece on how the UK press staged a conspiracy to make it look as though Michael’s UK comeback in 2006 was a flop.

          What people like Orth and Dimond have to say generally goes in one ear and out the other. Even those in the business are well aware of Dimond’s long standing bias against Michael. People are no longer surprised or shocked by anything they have to say-or to what lengths they will go to in order to portray Michael as a villain. The reaction is usually more apt to be, “Oh, here goes Ms. Demon again, on one of her rants.”

          Whether it is fair or not, it is those journalists who have supported Michael or who have at least tried to be more fair and objective, who really hold the greater weight of responsibility, both for what they say and how it is perceived. The world is watching to see their defenses crumble, or to perceive any possible weak links in their claims. Anything they say is apt to be pounced on far more quickly than anything the well known haters have to say, whether it is by fans, haters, or the media.

          It isn’t fair, but it’s not a fair world we live in.

    4. I completely agree, Sina. It doesn’t matter *what* Michael’s sexuality may have been; from all sides of the question, any declaration reflects the speaker’s own interests and personal fantasies much more than it has anything to do with the reality of the situation.

      I’ll admit I’m as curious as the next person, but at the end of the day, I don’t know–and, truly, I don’t care–who Michael did or didn’t have sex with.

      The fans seem to be the ones who generate most of the controversy in this matter. Twisting themselves into pretzels, they continually try to come up with something that might pass as evidence of Michael’s putative heterosexuality. (The mere presence of heterosexually-oriented porn in a man’s home does NOT constitute any “proof” of that man’s sexual practices or proclivities, much as you may wish it to function that way.)

      Fans even use hurtful language: “Michael was a normal, heterosexual guy….,” etc., as if to say, those who are not straight are somehow “abnormal”—or *wrong* in some way.

      Exactly *whose* voice do you use when you write or speak in these ways? Exactly WHOSE entrenched social norms are you appealing to, what group of people are you trying to address and reassure when you proclaim that Michael was just a “normal straight guy”? Would you yourselves look askance at any friend, family member, acquaintance, or neighbor who was gay/bisexual/asexual, etc.?

      I know I’ve stated this before. I believe it’s very wrongheaded to cop to a set of values that most of you probably don’t even believe in yourselves. You then invent a discourse that, you assume, will be palatable enough to a Mr. and Mrs. Phobic Smith of Small Town Illinois (or your idea of them), that it can be dished up and served as some “definitive” version of Michael Jackson’s life. The language fans often deploy on these discussion boards is often molded into a concocted fiction—a story—that goes way above and beyond what’s needed merely to support an argument about Michael’s innocence in the child molestation charges. Which is really what matters; and, as far as I’m concerned, the ONLY thing about Michael’s behavior that matters.

      Is it really necessary to go so far as to insist that Michael was a “player” who had multiple relationships with women? Why is this important?

      1. I get what you are saying about the latent homophobia in the fan community which is reflected in such expression as “normal heterosexual” – as if homosexuals aren’t normal. But Michael himself always said he was heterosexual and I think that should be respected unless there’s proof otherwise (which there isn’t).

        1. The reason some don’t want to buy Michael’s own words is because there is a very strong conviction by certain factions that he was simply either in denial, or trying to preserve his image.

          The notion of him being in denial, to be honest, wouldn’t totally shock me and I say this only because of his strict JW upbringing. It would have been instilled in him from an early age that homosexuality is a sin (as is believed by most very fundamental religious denominations, not just JW). Thus, I absolutely believe that even if he’d had such inclinations, he would have never allowed himself to give in to them-or at least not without a lot of torture and guilt. Most of his friends have vouched that he came across as even slightly homophobic (but this can also be the mark of someone in denial, not wanting to accept in others what he can’t accept in himself). Perhaps, after breaking away from the JW, he might have eventually allowed himself more freedom in that regard, but we will probably never know for sure. The few men who have tried to claim affairs-Scott Thorson, Jason Pfieffer, etc-haven’t exactly been very credible.

          But what I find from all factions is a need to instantly discredit anyone who doesn’t paint the picture of MJ that they want to hear. Everyone who has ever publicly claimed a sexual relationship with Michael, from Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe, on down to to Jason Pfieffer to even-God forbid-Wade Robson, has been either embraced and believed,or scorned, ridiculed and discredited-depending on which faction is speaking out and what their particular narrative of Michael is. It works both ways, which is why it’s a bit of a two-edged sword. The same people who are so quick to pounce on and discredit the women in his life who speak out are usually, I have noticed, the quickest to embrace-without question-any claim made by a man, or vice versa.

          I know it is a sore subject that has already been hashed to death on here, but I still have to say that in my experience, those who insist so strongly that he was gay are usually the same ones most strongly trying to convince themselves and others that he was also a pedophile. And before we “go there” again, I want to stress that I realize full well they are NOT one and the same. But because Michael was accused of molesting young boys (not girls) then any truth to the accusations would mean an obvious attraction to males (regardless of how young). I believe this lies at the heart of why the true issue of Michael’s sexuality is such a sore spot, and perhaps always will be. Just as when Aprhodite Jones made the remark of believing Michael was “in love” with Jordan Chandler-the red flags go up, immediatly.

          I disagree with Nina in one regard. I believe the heterosexual porn absolutely does reflect his taste and orientation. People don’t amass a porn collection consisting of what they are not attracted to.

          I have also seen all of the hater arguments concerning the alleged “male erotica” books found. But I have researched them all and these are not pornographic books. They are art books and photography books-and frankly, no more shocking than anything one might have found in Madonna’s personal collection, or anyone with an interested and open mind to art and erotica. They prove nothing-either way. But it’s interesting to note that all of the books featuring males were art books, whereas all of the images that could be defined as straight up porn were of women.

          Personally, I can only vouch that I know Michael did have affairs with women. I have enough contact with some of the people who knew him best to feel 100% confident in making that assertion. And I do believe Lisa Marie. There were eyewitness accounts of just how cozy those two were together.

          That being said, it would not shock me if I were to ever find out that he was bisexual, or had some sort of inclination in that regard. We have to remember that, as someone growing up in show business, Michael would have been exposed to anything and everything from a young age up. Bisexuality is by far the most common orientation in show business, and I think perhaps that stems from the creative and artistic mindset; the willingness to be open and to experiment. In the end, it may well be that the reason Michael seems to defy and yet conform to so many expectations is because, perhaps, there could have been a little truth in all of them. Who’s to say?

          But the sad reality is that we’ll probably never know for sure. Anyone can say anything; claim to have been his lover, etc and these days, Michael isn’t here to clarify the picture. And even when he was, that still didn’t stop people from saying whatever they wanted. Even when Michael was alive, he was always having to deny the latest wild claim made up about him, from Thorson to the latest “Billie Jean” claiming he’d fathered quadruplets. Now that he’s gone, the playing field is truly wide open. And, as always in an atmosphere where anyone can say what they want, and where the tabloids will buy stories from anyone with a story to sell, people will continue to believe what they want to hear-and to deny what they don’t want to hear. It also means that the likelihood of ever getting to the real truth is probably something not likely to happen, at least not any time in the foreseeable future. In the end, Michael’s own words on the subject may not be enough to satisfy some “inquiring minds” but it is all we have, and I do agree, out of common respect (despite human nature being what it is) it should be enough.

          If anything, this really just speaks to how much energy people have invested in what they want to believe about Michael Jackson. I agree it’s a sad state of affairs that the man’s own words on the subject can’t be the final say on the matter. I’ve always said, if Michael was truly “in the closet” as some insist, he would have come out-if he’d wanted to. Or, no doubt, he would have eventually been ‘outted” by someone.

          I’ve listened to some of his most private, intimate conversations (admittedly, many of these should never have been taped and put out for public consumption, but they were). I’ve heard him go on and on about this girl or that girl that he liked. Never once do we hear him going on about some guy crush.

          Again, that may not stand as definitive proof of anything. Only that he didn’t discuss these matters with his friends, even in intimate settings when his guard was down. Like I said, most of his closest friends have vouched that as far as they knew, he was heterosexual and liked women. And these are not people who have rushed to sell their stories to the tabloids for hundreds of dollars. (As we know, only salacious or “shocking” stories sell).

          I am of two minds on the idea that it doesn’t matter what his sexuality was. I agree with Nina on some points. In the end, it really should NOT matter. But it depends on what we want to ultimately accept. If we agree that Michael Jackson will always be someone for whom people can paint whatever brush strokes they want, then we will also never have a definitive truth of who the man and the person was.

          On the other hand, as I’ve said many times, the mystery is in some ways a part of the cultural allure. And there is a certain romanticism about that.

          I also sometimes find myself torn on what Michael, ultimately, would have wanted. On the one hand, he didn’t seem to be courting some air of great mystery about himself. He always pretty much put it all “out there” for us. He wasn’t (at least not intentionally) courting some androgynous, enigmatic image, even if that’s how a lot of people interpreted it. He was always pretty transparent, in fact. Instead, it seemed more that others projected onto HIM what they wanted to believe.

          Like the best showmen, Michael loved to keep us guessing. But then he would get frustrated because even when he was as transparent as he knew how to be, people were still treating him like some blank canvas that they could just fill in however they wanted. And I think this also goes to the heart of why people would no longer just believe what he said. I agree that, in the end, we can only be certain of and know what Michael wanted us to know about himself, and to some extent, no matter how curious is human nature, we have to respect that. Michael was good friends with many, many gay people in the business-many of them openly gay. I believe that, over time, these people could have certainly broken his defenses down and worn away at his prejudices and self-denial, had that been the case. Over time, he did become a lot more open and accepting of homosexuality, simply by being in a business where it is more often the norm than not. But his own position, and his own open declaration of who he was, never wavered.

          It is interesting that he both courted and yet, by turn, was often repelled by the very thing he had helped create. I am speaking here more of image, which was the thing that encouraged so many to paint him with their own brush strokes. We were never quite sure if Michael was truly a victim of fame, or the puppet master in complete control. Sometimes I think it was a little of both.

          I didn’t mean to write another blog in response, lol.

          But the conversations here do generate some interesting directions.

          1. It could be that MJ came across as slightly homophobic not because of his upbringing, but because he was annoyed by people assuming he was gay, and men constantly hitting on him. In that filmed deposition, he certainly sounds fed up with having to defend his orientation, but he doesn’t sound like he hates or fears gay people.

            As to his actual orientation, he said he was straight, he had all that hetero porn, and even his personal journalistic proctologist Diane Dimond couldn’t find the gay goods on him. Why exactly is Michael Jackson’s heteosexuality such a threat? Is it all those swooning white girls?

          2. I think Michael Jackson was also very aware of the diversity of this worldwide audience — and sensitive enough not to offend any group of fans. One can say, “I’m not gay” in the interests of accuracy while avoiding the impression that you’re disgusted by those who are gay.

          3. I think the “slight homophobia” on Michael’s part was connected to his religious upbringing too and not to some personal issues with gay people or personal issues or struggles with homosexuality. As he quit the JWs his views also seemed to change in that respect. Showbusiness is full of gay people and Michael was well aware of the fact that a lot of people he worked with were homosexuals and it did not seem to affect his respect and love for those people. A lot of his other friends and associates, such as Arnold Klein, were also openly gay men. To me he did not seem to have a fear or phobia of them.

        2. One can think he was in denial or whatever, but unless there is proof of it it’s nothing but speculation and projection that is unfair to Michael because it’s an attempt to deny him the right to define his own sexuality.

          Scott Thorson and Jason Pfeiffer aren’t discredited because they are men, but because their stories have as many contradictions and holes as a Swiss cheese and they are both financially motivated to tell such stories. Same with the accusers of child molestation.

          I personally have the same critical standard for any women telling such stories and there are a lot of those stories I don’t believe for the same reasons I don’t believe Thorson or Pfeiffer. They are just not credible.

          The JW beliefs cannot just affect someone’s ability to embrace homosexual attractions, but it affects someone’s ability to embrace ANY kind of sexual attraction outside of marriage. So why is it that people will explain the “lack of” visible girlfriends with the notion “he must be gay” instead of explaining it by “he was brought up strictly religious and that may be the reason why we don’t have (credible) stories of him bedding women left and right”? That and his general trust issues.

          “It also means that the likelihood of ever getting to the real truth is probably something not likely to happen, at least not any time in the foreseeable future.”

          To me it’s not that complicated or mysterious. Michael did state that he was heterosexual. To me it’s not hard to accept as long as there isn’t evidence of the contrary. So far there isn’t.

          1. I feel pretty much the same way. It’s just that, with a subject like Michael, I sometimes have to separate my personal views from those of the culture at large in order to understand WHY people have the perceptions of Michael that they do.

            My personal belief is that Michael was heterosexual. Am I open to the possibility that he could have been otherwise? Yes. But being open doesn’t mean I have drawn any foregone conclusion because, just as I said, I would need a lot more evidence than anything I have seen/read/heard so far.

            As I have often said, out of simple human dignity we owe it to Michael to accept him at his word. He made it clear that he identified himself as a straight man, and that was his perogative. People like Freddie Mercury and Elton John, for example, made a choice to let the world know who they really were. Elton is still alive and made his own choice, and Freddie likewise made a choice while he was alive. My point is that it is not for anyone else to “out” Michael-especially now that he’s gone and cannot speak for himself-if it was not a personal choice he made for himself.

            I know, again, there is a whole faction out there who will come up with every excuse in the book as to why he couldn’t have “come out” even if he’d wanted to. I am content to let those people argue all they want. In the end, it still just leads us right back to square one.

            That is a good point about Arnie Klein, who of course was just one of many, many very close gay friends Michael had. I am sure that the JW beliefs about homosexuality and gay people was probably one of the many things he came to question over time, as he distanced himself further and further from the religion and the doctrines he had been taught.

  10. Maybe AJ was “unnerved” by that gold digging ho’s obvious lies about being unable to recall some pretty significant details of the Chandler affair. Like Raven, I have no doubt that MJ had a sexual relationship with June Chandler, and that’s why he stared at her so intently and coldly as she testified. (I also suspect there was some sexual component to Joy Robson’s relationship to MJ, although perhaps not as much as she wished.)

    May I suggest that maybe we are investing too much significance to AJ’s remark? It will be soon forgotten, or should be. Meanwhile there seems to be a change in the air about molestation allegations. A couple of weeks ago, Law and Order SVU aired an episode about a music teacher and vocal coach who was accused of molesting a four year old boy. The child correctly described a sex toy he said was used on him, and the bathroom where he said it took place. When another little boy said the same thing happened to him, it seemed an open and shut case. After all, it’s common knowledge that “little children don’t lie about being molested”.

    The teacher was a bit odd looking – black, with his hair in twists, with out-sized glasses. He was also openly gay. It was easy for the parents and the police to believe in his guilt.

    As it turned out, it was a plot conjured up by the two older sisters of the young boys, who were angry because the music teacher coached another girl to a spot on an American Idol-type show instead of them. They planted the sex toy and coached the little boys as to what to say. When their wrongdoing was exposed, the teacher was released, but his reputation, and his spirit, were destroyed. The girls got probation.

    I can’t recall any recent television show that dealt with molestation where it was shown that some accusations, no matter how credible they appear, are false, and that the innocent suffer greatly from them. I believe that MJ’s reputation may benefit from this more balanced view.

  11. I’ve just finished listening to the entire interview with AJ. I’d like to suggest that we all just take a deep breath here. It may have been an unexpected statement from the perspective of the fan community, but an uniformed person listening to the entire interview will come away from it having heard 90 minutes of unequivocal defense of Michael.

    Here is a professional journalist explaining her personal response to June Chandler AT THE TIME. That is consistent with her original beliefs about Michael’s guilt. She is now stating she does not claim to have personal expertise with the 93 case and doesn’t know what occurred. But she also unequivocally states that “if MJ had been a molestor we would have evidence and there is none..” And she also DESTROYS Robson.

    Personally I think that AJ is MORE CREDIBLE to the outside world because she does not make an intellectual leap at this topic. She shows that she is not biased. She is not going to go somewhere she does not have expertise. Good on her!! This is akin to TMez who is universally trusted BECAUSE he is objective.

    We do not need a journalist who caters and contours statements to fans. We need journalist who are credible to the OUTSIDE WORLD. Go AJ.

    1. Yes, as I stated, this was a mostly positive interview, and it is true to some extent that those kinds of comments may not fall under the same kind of scrutiny from neutral listeners as they do from fans. However, I think what bothers me most is the “I think he was in love with that boy” comment.

      To make such a comment about a man you are attempting to defend against accusations of child molestation is really mind boggling, to say the least.

    2. What the world needs is a journalist or author who is neutral to tell Michael’s story. I would rather read a book or a piece of work by a non-fan who writes an accurate and balance account of the child abuse allegations, even if it means tackling the more uncomfortable elements of his relationship with children, than a fan who may brush certain things under the carpets and sanitize everything, and lets be honest many fans do that. The sleepovers are one of the things that many fans do not want to address, they brush it under the carpet or pretend Michael always slept on the floor.

      1. I think you may like reading what I have planned for some upcoming installments of the Wade Robson series. I’m not going to be sweeping any of that “under the carpet.” It is going to be addressed as fairly, honestly, and accurately as I know how.

  12. “But the irony, as I have so often found, is that fans usually do far more research than most mainstream journalists”.

    So very true. Four dedicated fans are working on a book about the album Michael and the controversy over the Cascio tracks. They’ve started a Kickstarter campaign to raise additional funds. Here’s the link:

    Personally, I am not all that invested in the issue. But if they’re successful, it may inspire other dedicated fans to publish books about MJ, and the mysterious aspects of his life and death.

  13. If you want the facts regarding the 1993 case, you MUST read “Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegation” (2004) book that proves Michael Jackson was NOT a child molester. They never found MJ guilty because he did NOT molester any child. I had a personal conversation with AJ and was shocked when she told me that she did not know for sure whether MJ was guilty or innocent. I was shocked at her comment in light of the fact that she published a book about MJ. If you want to know what really happened in 1993 and how the FALSE child abuse allegations all began, you MUST read “Redemption” soon to be made into a movie.

    1. Geraldine, is that really you?

      If yes, I’d like to thank you for your book. It’s one of the best books out there regarding the allegations in my opinion, especially about all the circumstances and reasons of the settlement. Many people (and I have to say even fans) are in dark about the reasons of the settlement, but this book explains it very well.

    2. “you MUST read “Redemption” soon to be made into a movie.” Are you at liberty to furnish at least some small details about the movie?

  14. Thomas Meserau ‘endorsed’ Sullivan’s book because of Sullivan’s unequivocal statement that Michael Jackson was innocent of the 2005 accusations. He felt Sullivan’s support as a known and respected writer (in his view) was important, considering the dearth of balanced reporting about Jackson by mainstream sources. I don’t fault Mesereau for this view. However, Sullivan’s statement of support is quickly followed by his description of Michael Jackson as ‘ pre-sexual and who likely went to his grave without ever having sex with anyone – man, woman or child.’ I can’t grasp how Sullivan’s lopsided support helps vindicate Michael Jackson and allow him his manhood.

    It sounds like a pat on the back with the right hand followed by a swift, neutralizing kick in the balls with the left foot.

    Remember that Sullivan also expressed reservations about Jackson’s innocence of the 1993 Chandler accusations – saying (during his book interviews) that there were still ‘question marks’ for him in that case.

    Apparently Michael Jackson (unlike other people on the planet) is not allowed to be both innocent of a horrible crime and also be a functioning sexual being. He can either be ‘perfectly smooth down there’ – and innocent. OR fully-endowed – and guilty.

    Can we name another person in our time subject to life-long public autopsy followed by eternal exhumation.

    That Jackson’s sexuality – and its direct connection to guilt or innocence — remains controversial to this day is both worrying and worthy of the Gruesome Guinness Book of World Records for Prolonged Public Vivisection.

    Everybody weighs in with opinions – psychologists, psychiatrists, arm-chair fabulists, pop-doc culturists, next door neighbors, relatives, hacks and quacks. He’s gay. He’s straight. He’s bi-sexual. He’s tri-sexual. He’s metro-sexual. He’s pre-sexual. He’s post-sexual. He’s asexual. He’s a pedophile. He’s a hebephile. He’s undersexed. He’s oversexed. He’s a virgin. He’s a womanizer.

    How many other terms are used to explore, probe, and brand Michael Jackson because of our inability or unwillingness to understand and accept his singular ‘way of being’ in a hostile and judgmental world?

    Will Michael Jackson ever be allowed his hard-earned professional kingship, his humanity, his innocence, and his functioning private parts?

    1. Do you know Judith.. I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a case for debating whether Michael Jackson actually breathed the same air as the rest of us , or maybe his other bodily functions could be analized on a prime time TV show… in the public interest of course!!

      Forgive my sarcasm.. and it isn’t directed at anyone here.. I just feel sometimes that there will always be “someone” who will want to bring up some topic about him, trivial or serious or even nonsensical, and make the facts fit their pre-conceived ideas.. and that was part of his life
      for so long that it will never change.

      1. MagsUK. I think Michael had a sense of humor about himself and how others may have interpreted his actions. After all, lots of it was pure show biz and he enjoyed it — up to a point. Soon, however, the media seized control of his playful, eccentrics and painted them dark, suspicious, and even criminal. Things he did and said were reported with a snide double entendre: “Just how Bad and Dangerous was this Smooth Criminal?”

        And his life, thus redefined, became its own albatross. Yet, despite unrelenting assaults, Michael Jackson nurtured Hope close to his heart which strengthened him to fight on until the end.

    2. Well said.

      Reminds me of an article I read in which the author argued that Michael Jackson was a castrato. It stuck in my mind because it was so bizarre, yet in many ways so typical. The author based her argument on his “high pitched” voice and “lack of facial hair”, “lack of relationships” and things like that. She analyzed his voice, compared it to known castratos etc.

      Then fans commented and enlightened the author that her theory is completely wrong and are based on false premises. They brought pictures in which Michael did have facial hair, they brought videos in which his voice was deep and most importantly they brought his autopsy which clearly stated that his genitalia was fully intact and fully normal – that of a normal adult male. Now comes the typical part. The author instead of bowing to all the evidence and admitting that her research at best was superficial and she let herself carried away by some preconcieved idea she had instead of doing a genuine research, STILL kept insisting on her theory that she apparently so fell in love with that she could not let facts get in the way. It was just crazy.

    3. Remember what Michael himself had to say about the matter:

      “Why not just tell people I’m an alien from Mars?
      Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight.
      They’ll believe anything you say, because you’re a reporter.
      But if I, Michael Jackson, were to say, “I’m an alien from Mars,
      and I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight,”
      people would say, “Oh, man, that Michael Jackson is nuts.
      You can’t believe a damn word that comes out of his mouth.”

    4. Judith; perhaps you’re right about all of this speculation and all these labels affixed (permanently, it would seem) to Michael. Why can’t he just be left alone?

      But I’m hard pressed to figure out what you propose. Michael isn’t the first public figure whose sexuality and private affairs have been the subject of an immense amount of gossip and speculation; nor will he be the last. As long as people are curious—and whatever is driving their curiosity—they are going to ask questions and engage in a lot of banter, most of it destined for the dustheap of history.

      So I’m wondering what kind of discourse you would like to hear, if any.

      1. Michael Jackson’s legacy is forming with more written about the depth and color of his music, his business acumen and humanitarian initiatives; more persona stories shared about his inspiring interactions over the years with everyday people around the world; tributes abound in his honor – from statues, artwork and gardens to the Everland Homes for children in Liberia and Haiti, to a flash mob performance in a shopping mall or Grand Central Station. His voice is remembered, played, danced to and enjoyed every day someplace in the world – small town juke joints, street corners, clubs, diners, backyard barbeques, hospitals, war zones, weddings, graduations, or where ever happiness abounds or is hoped for in the heart of one person, two people, or a multitude. He abides in our ubiquitous technology and speaks loud and strong through every portal — a symphony orchestra, a jazz quartet, steel drums, or the spectacular Ohio State Marching Band’s rousing half-time tribute that circled the globe. Academe embraces Michael Jackson as a serious topic of study with classes and seminars that explore his global influence artistically and socially.

        Together, every tribute, remembrance, discovery, testament, thoughtfully-researched book or article reveal Michael Jackson as a whole and complex being, and a counterbalance to the scales left lopsided in favor of Jacko-in-the Box-for-Laffs clown presented by media. Yes, controversy and scandal are part of Michael Jackson’s very big and panoramic life and I don’t suggest they will be, or should be, forgotten.

        However, it is time that all of Michael Jackson’s parts – scattered asunder for far too long – be reassembled for the world to see as ONE.

        That is the sight I’d like to see and the discussion I would welcome, now and for all the generations to come.

        1. Judith says, “However, it is time that all of Michael Jackson’s parts – scattered asunder for far too long – be reassembled for the world to see as ONE.”

          Judith, I admit I have some trouble forming a concrete idea of what you mean here. I know that we know that Michael often spoke on behalf of unity, not divisiveness; or perhaps of the world becoming “one” with a common purpose and set of goals. (We also know that the recent Cirque show is, perhaps in that spirit, called “Michael Jackson One”.)

          But I’m a bit confounded about what you mean by reassembling the parts, or for the world to “see as ONE.” Does this mean that everyone —perhaps everyone in the world—should be in agreement about Michael Jackson? Is there some spiritual process or activity you’re pointing to here, whereby people might “get a message”? I’m curious.

          1. No, Nina. I do not mean that everyone should feel the same way about Michael Jackson.

            I mean that for too long, Michael Jackson has been defined by the press who selected those parts of his life that generated the most attention, curiosity and profit. They focused on what they chose to describe as his strangeness — loving nature and exotic pets; living at home with his parents with no apparent romantic attachments; his soft-spoken, mild-mannered demeanor and childlike view of how the world should be; having children as friends; building an elaborate fantasy-home called Neverland which he freely opened to thousands of at-risk kids; his reserve about discussing his changing appearance, etc.

            Of course, Michael’s spectacular professional achievements could not be ignored, but there emerged a sinister parallel story of Jacko the Freak which traveled next to Michael Jackson superstar, and soon eclipsed him in news coverage.

            With Michael’s death, all of the positive things I described earlier are emerging and will help the world see the whole of Michael Jackson — the superstar, the humanitarian, the Father, the businessman, the prankster,, the friend, the writer/poet, the eccentric, the visionary, the filmmaker, the seeker of knowledge, the fashion icon, and all the other parts that make him a unique individual.

            Michael lived a big, interesting, important, eventful and panoramic life which should be presented as one piece rather than in disjointed bits as the tabloids did for so many years.

            New generations are excited about Michael Jackson and may want to know more about the Man as well as the Superstar. They should have as much information as possible to learn, evaluate and make up their own minds.

          2. I understand where you are coming from. This is one reason I began incorporating some of Michael’s work into my school curriculum, and now that his work is becoming more and more of an accepted academic study, it is making it a lot easier to do so (hey, if we can teach courses on The Beatles and Bob Dylan, and analyze their works in English and music classes, why not Michael Jackson?).

            I am not, of course, trying to convert my students into “fans.” If some do happen to come away with a renewed respect for who the man and artist was, great. But the way I see it, education is all about creating open minds. For those one or two class meetings that we cover Michael’s work, it creates an opportunity to chip away at the media caricature (which, for many young people, is all they have known) and to allow them to experience that broader, panoramic scope of who he was. Through the video clips and writings I choose, they get an opportunity to see Michael as a pro-active civil rights advocate (the Harlem speech), as a spokesperson for artists in the music industry (the anti-Sony speech), as a poet and humanitarian (through various selections from Dancing The Dream); they get to experience Michael’s humor; his funny and loveable side (it always cracks them up when Michael says Maria Carey was crying so hard “I had to hold her”) or when he explains to Oprah Winfrey why he grabs his crotch. They see the poignancy of him experiencing his first Christmas; they hear him talk about the drive to get a liver for Farkus. Most of all, they get to really hear him in his own words, through his music, speeches and poems, many for perhaps the first time. It provides an opportunity for those walls to come down a little, and to better grasp that full, panoramic view of who the man really was.

            I don’t care if they come away as fans because that isn’t the goal, anymore than I care whether they come away as “fans” of Fitzgerald or Walt Whitman or James Baldwin. Rather, it is all about creating understanding and opening their eyes to new experiences and ways of seeing the world. After all, most kids would never pick up a Shakespeare play on their own. Nor can we expect them to just “know” what our greatest artists, thinkers, and writers were all about, unless we take the initiative to expose them.

            However, I do know that after the experience, they have a much better and fuller understanding of who Michael Jackson was, and I doubt the media caricature will ever hold quite the same appeal. As I’ve said before, kids today are smarter than ever. They know how the media works. Perhaps the boom of social media has had a lot to do with it. I have read a lot of articles on this and I believe there is something to it.Social media has its downfalls, but it has also created a much more critical thinking generation who are acutely aware that what they hear on TV or the nightly news isn’t the end all and be all.

            And I think that is a very positive thing.

            I also am aware that, once my students leave the classroom, they may take the initiative to research Michael further. No doubt, they will run across the garbage. It’s out there, and there is nothing that can be done about that. But they will also know that this was a human being and an artist who had many, many facets. They will have the ammunition and the knowledge to be much more critical of the garbage when they do come across it.

            I agree it is not so much about arriving at one, accepted “truth” of who he was, but rather, simply being able to better appreciate the full grasp of who he was, rather than this lopsided view we were fed for so long.

  15. Hello Raven and hello to everyone, and welcome back allforlove! yesterday I was forced to block the sender. Now let me try to see if I can restore

  16. Raven.. what a worrying time for you. So glad to see you back and safe. I for one need my daily fix of AFLB!!

    Whilst you were gone I read the article by Charles Thomson which appeared on his blog on 17 November. “Chorus of Boos” and the malicious reporting of Michael’s appearance at the World Music Awards 2006 in London. Although I have seen very short snippets from this in the past, I have never seen the complete appearance. I found myself laughing and crying at the same time. The thunderous non-stop noise, the audience clamouring for Michael, Michael, Michael. The handshakes. Singing along with “We are the World”. The smiles that lit up Michael’s face.It was so wonderful to see that everyone there still adored him.. their excitement is almost tangible, and, daft as it sounds, it made me feel as if I could reach out and touch him too. Yet the press and the television reported a completely false story of a shambolic performance ,angry fans, and hardly mentioned the reason he was there in the first place ..104 million copies of Thriller sold.. Diamond award. (I found a great You-Tube video showing the whole 15 minutes appearance by AboveElevated .. sorry I don’t know whether I’m allowed to do a link or not .. Michael Jackson -World Music Award (HD) 2006 )

    You expect to see this sort of re-action at a Michael concert , but I’ve never seen anything like this at an award show.. I think even Michael was overwhelmed.. .I know this is some way off topic but it is a perfect example of the constant bombardment of Michael’s character.I sometimes still puzzle over why he was treated the way he was

    1. As you are based there, perhaps you can shed some light as to why the UK media is so relentlessly vicious toward Michael to this day. Other than Stacy Brown cashing an occasional check from the New York Post, there’s nothing comparable over here. Is it MJ’s ownership of the Beatles catalog, old-fashioned racism, or a combination of both?

      1. It also isn’t much of a jump from the UK to Australia, where I also highly suspect there is a very organized band of haters that are creating much of the current havoc we are seeing.

      2. Hi Simba.. just spent 45 minutes replying to you.. computer crashed lost it all.. I will give it another go when I’ve recovered .. lol !!!

      3. Hi Simba.. second attempt !! I’m afraid it’s a long reply, and probably doesn’t answer your question. To be honest I haven’t really given much thought to those two aspects from a UK perspective, but in general terms I am certain there are those who have used both against him.

        Most of my deeper knowledge of Michael has been obtained in recent years ( like numerous others ) and I am still learning.

        I was aware of the various negative, and often ridiculous stories circulating about Michael through the years, but at the time I let them go in one ear and out the other. Like Raven has indicated in the past, Michael was always “there”. I just didn’t pay him any particular attention (other than enjoying his music and films) .It’s very different now of course..

        I haven’t bought newspapers or magazines for 20 years or more, around about the time when traditional and well-loved publications started to report less and less real news , and more and more gossip. Up until that time, and bearing in mind that there was no 24/7 news coverage, it would seem that newspaper reports were generally accurate, as was the TV news, albeit that a particular spin on any topic was often applied.

        Since then I have only read some-one else’s newspaper, just flicking through and leaving a parting shot along the lines of “what a load of rubbish , why do you waste your money on this trash” ( yes I know.. how rude.. always done with a sense of humour and me receiving equally rude payback .. lol)
        Yet the point I am making is that my clever, intelligent friends read and believe this stuff. Their newspapers have become a form of light entertainment, and they have probably forgotten much of what they have read by the next day. Of course they assure me they don’t bother with the real news because it’s so depressing. I believe this is referred to as dumbing down.

        So to get back to the question..I don’t think there was any obvious black racism, but I do suspect an element of anti-Americanism ( is that a word?). There has always been an element of resentment (from some) towards the “Yanks”, who think they won World War 2. Even more so I think there was a lot of resentment against American artists who invaded our music charts. I can think of quite a few instances where an inferior British version of a song was promoted over a far superior version by an American artist (eg Walk on By ), especially at the height of the “Liverpool sound”.. and then eventually along comes that Jackson kid…
        However I don’t really believe that Michael’s ownership of the Beatals’ catalogue played any part really, simply because the majority of people would be immune to the implications/ irony of it. I’m not sure any journalist would convince them to be that interested. The Beatals were obviously huge, wrote some fabulous songs and people have fond memories.. yet despite this I don’t think there is any particular fierce loyalty to them in the UK.. .

        I feel the answer is much simpler. In the UK nicknames are common, and usually stay with a person for life. My son, now 42, has been known as Simmo since he first went to school (our name is Simpson)It would not be unusual for somebody named Jackson to be called “Jacko” (and very few people in the UK would be aware of the implied insult to a black man.. although I am equally certain that there were journalists here who were aware, only too well). Equally the appetite for gossip, whether it be about the neighbours, or someone in the public eye, has grown to almost insatiable proportions .

        I should add that I do think that until very recently most didn’t feel that they had cause to doubt what they were reading in the newspapers, even if some things needed to be taken with a “pinch of salt”. Again the BBC, until recently was revered, and respected worldwide for it’s integrity, and affectionately known as there was no reason not to trust it’s news bulletins.

        So once you think of someone as “Jacko” and then you start hearing that that the lovely little boy with the beautiful smile and amazing voice has become bizarre , strange and eccentric ..then it’s not a huge leap from “Wacko” to weird and worse. As time progresses that identity is not challenged and “anything goes”.. nothing new there.

        I guess most journalists won’t back down but must continue to perpetuate the myth and if peddling lies and innuendo about “Jacko” (forgive me) helps sales and collects a few haters along the way ,then they will continue to do so.

        So my reasoning is nothing profound or even original. I genuinely believe that the carefully constructed portrayal of Michael has been accepted because people are gullible,and unfortunately the level of their gullibility does not necessarily correspond to their level of intelligence.

        whew .. I think I’m done.

        1. MagUK – thank you for your thoughtful answer. I do wonder, if it wasn’t racism, why didn’t the UK press treat Elvis Presley as horribly as they treated MJ? If it was just anti-Americanism and resentment about WW II, Elvis came on the scene much earlier. Meanwhile over here, the arrival of the Beatles, the Stones, and so many others is referred to as the British Invasion, but it didn’t engender media hostility. We just love you Brits!

          1. Yes Simba.. those thoughts crossed my mind too . that’s “the trouble with Michael”. He was so unique in every respect, that it is difficult to find a bench-mark to measure him by ..(for want of a better term).

            Glad you like us Brits,, some of us are OK!!!

    2. I really do not at all understand the press’s reaction to that performance, or why the need to concoct a phony story of a performance that tanked. It really makes you wonder if they might have pulled a similar tactic with the TII shows, although I suppose in that case the ticket sales alone would have been enough to discredit them had they tried. But the idea of the UK press attempting to convince the world that Michael’s shows were tanking? I could see it happening if they really thought they could get away with it.

      In this case, it was easy to fabricate a phony story because it was an award show and a one-shot deal, and not likely to bear close scrutiny outside of the people who were actually there.

      It also makes you wonder why on earth they would have thought the UK was the ideal place for him to stage his big comeback, after the way he had been treated by the press there?

      Not that the US press had been any better. But I think the US was long overdue for a Michael Jackson tour, and I sure would have been one of the first in line to buy tix!

      1. AEG chose the UK because it is a convenient hub for fans from around the world. They believed that selling a Michael Jackson tour in the US would be problematic, and that foreigners made up his strongest fan base. But the main reason is because AEG owns the O2 arena, and they have to keep it booked or suffer the economic consequences. It should be clear by now that Randy Phillips, Paul Gongaware, and the rest of the crew at AEG Live are pretty lousy at their jobs. It’s a real shame that Prince (Nelson, not Jackson), who was on the witness list, never testified about his experiences trying to deal with them.

        Regarding MJ and his attitude toward homosexuals, why is he singled out because of his JW upbringing? The majority of religious Americans belong to denominations that teach that homosexual behavior is sinful, including the millions who are Roman Catholics. Yet most don’t allow that to govern their personal interactions with gay people. Michael was his own man, not a puppet of the JWs, and he proved it when he walked away from them, at the cost of alienating those he loved. But even the most liberal, gay-accepting straight guy in the world would get annoyed by hordes of people who never even met him loudly insisting he must be either gay or “asexual”.

  17. Yes, Raven. You are doing your job very well as teacher — providing a broad scope of information for your students to learn from and eventually come to their own conclusions. And even the conclusions we have today may evolve over time as new information is revealed about all sorts of subjects and individuals. That’s the fascination and beauty of learning that we love — and so did Michael Jackson.

  18. In other (good) news, AEG just canned Randy Phillips.

    Gongaware is probably next. Kathy Jorrie, Shawn Trell, and Ted Fikre should be looking for work, too. Their antics and incompetence, revealed during the trial, put AEG in a very bad light, and even though I don’t think Anschutz gave a damn about Michael, I don’t think he’s the type to tolerate negative scrutiny.

  19. If this comment is still relevant; a thought that comes to mind, that it was probably the adolescent boys, i.e. Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arviso who were more likely ‘in love with’ Michael. It is well known about infatuations with older attractive pop stars when in one’s teens. He would not have wanted to hurt their feelings being the kind caring person he was, and maybe a little flattered, being human too. I always sensed that Michael was innocent, even years ago, before I was so swept up by his powerful influence since 2009. Like a sixth sense, I just knew.

    1. I actually believe that Jordie and Gavin were just greedy little bastards, and it was Wade who was in love with MJ. There is genuine pathos and longing in his voice and expression when he talks about “our love” in the infamous Today interview. (Not for one second do I think MJ felt that way about Wade!) Wade’s career is over, because his choreography is out of fashion and his style hasn’t evolved, and because of his personal behavior, but that baby still needs to eat. MJ’s death must have been the ultimate blow to Wade, exacerbated by his failure to score the Cirque positions, losing out yet again to his arch rival Jamie King. So he turned on MJ – proof yet again that there’s a thin line between love and hate.

  20. I believe Michael was in love with his own lost childhood as he envisioned it should have been — full of endless fun, playtime, sweet frivolity, silliness and sunshine. Oblivious to the fact that (chronologically at least) those days were past him, Michael simply reached back in time for those golden moments with innocent (for the most part) kids and effortlessly entered their world and became one of them. Suffice to say Michael had ample ducats to physically recreate that fairy kingdom of which he and all children so easily inhabit and make themselves at home. Michael also made the happy discovery that children fueled his creativity and nurturing instincts. It must have been such a fair time!

    Michael had absolute belief in his ability to literally recreate and retrieve those lost years.

    I’m reminded of some lines from The Great Gatsby — who also set about retrieving the past.

    Nick Carroway: “You can’t relive the past.”
    Jay Gatsby (incredulous): “Can’t relive the past? Why of course you can, old sport!

    Of course, the Big People looked upon Michael Jackson’s quest with a mixture of head-scratching curiosity, suspicion and horror. Big People do that — maybe out of genuine concern for the welfare of all concerned, or ‘how things will look’ or because their minds dwell permanently in the sewer.

    After the first blow in 1993, Michael envisioned marriage – again as he thought it should be. After all, he had few (if any) positive role models for that grown-up relationship. So he created it in his head – find a lovely girl whom he liked and loved to enthusiastically share his singular world, and have a family to raise and love together. Jump on board the glittering Michael Jackson carousel for the ride of a lifetime.

    He found the girl whom he liked and loved and they got married. But it proved hard for her to jump on board, hold on and love every minute of it. We know the end result.

    1. It’s interesting you mention the quote from The Great Gatsby. I have been considering a post that would analyze some of the similarities between Michael and Jay Gatsby. Actually, I would like to extend that to include a series on several movie and/or literary characters that have strong parallels with Michael.

    2. Another profound insight Judith.. and of course he then had the family he wanted and so very much adored, and although most people maybe don’t look at it this way, they were taken from him too.

  21. I don’t really consider myself a Michael Jackson “fan”. I have a great respect and admiration for his art and humanitarian contributions and have done a lot of research on the allegations. I have read Aphrodite Jones’ book and while she does have some excellent information in that book that doesn’t seem to be available anywhere else, her book reads like it was written by a hardcore Jackson fan. She names all the chapters after his songs, and at one point refers to Michael as a “king”. This doesn’t make her sound like a “journalist” at all. And that’s a huge problem. Casual Jackson listeners aren’t going to be convinced that he wasn’t a pedophile if they are hearing it from a fan. They want to hear it from someone objective, who doesn’t necessarily praise Michael (as a side note, this is why I think a book like Randall Sullivan’s is so important because even though there’s a lot of garbage in it, he comes out saying Michael is innocent. I can’t think of a single book written by someone outside of the Jackson family or fan community that says he was innocent). Sullivan even exposes Dimond’s filth. It’s not just Jackson fans who are gonna read this book, because the title makes it sound salacious. (Sorry, didn’t mean to make this a plug of his book).

    Aphrodite isn’t a great Jackson activist. She has said on more than one occasion that Sneddon was the one who enacted a law that allows a prosecutor to bring in propensity evidence. This is incorrect. Sneddon and Gil Garcetti passed what they call the “Jackson law” which can force an alleged victim of abuse to testify against their alleged abuser. He enacted this law hoping that Jordan Chandler would grow a pair and testify against Jackson. When you spread a lie, you become no better than Dimond, Orth and those other creatures after Jackson. It ruins her credibility. If she was wrong about that, what else could she be wrong about, is what the skeptics will wonder. And clearly she’s wrong about June. Maybe she should read her own book to refresh her memory.

    1. Actually, Halperin’s book also draws this conclusion as well. But as with the Sullivan book, there was so much other garbage in it that fans didn’t support it.

      Most of the books that have been written about MJ (if we exclude books by outright haters like Diane Dimond who have their own bias and agenda) tend to leave the actual question of his guilt or innocence as an open ended question. However, there is nothing wrong with a journalist taking a firm stand on the issue if they’ve done their research and are truly convinced of his innocence. I don’t think Jones was a fan at the time of the trial (she herself has said as much). I think she became a fan after-the-fact. I asked her during our interview about some of the accusations that she was “smitten” with Michael Jackson and her response was that she is a journalist and those kinds of emotions don’t enter the equation (however, she did say something to the effect, “Maybe for a second” when asked about being “smitten,” lol). However, journalists are human, too, and certainly a journalist can be a fan of someone. In fact, if they are writing about someone’s music or art, they probably SHOULD be a fan. But I do understand the natural suspicion that people have when it comes to a fan (even a fan journalist) writing about the issue of a celebrity’s guilt or innocence. And I agree that some of the language in her book is a little over the top for that purpose.

      If one follows a journalist for any length of time, they will certainly learn that all of them have their personal biases and opinions, like everyone else, and I think the more passionate they are about the topic, the more those biases are bound to bleed through. In Jones’s case, she obviously became very passionate in her belief that the Arvizo case was a complete scam.

      And actually, giving titles and chapter names taken from Michael’s songs, lyrics, etc seems to be a common practice across the board, for fans, haters, and neutral journalists alike. Even Diane Dimond called her book “Be Careful Who You Love.”

      1. I didn’t include Halperlin’s book because most people (including Sullivan) don’t consider him to be the least bit credible. As idiotic as Halperlin is, his book went to #1 on the NYT’s list, so thousands of people have now read the truth about Michael and the Chandlers/Arvizos. To me, that’s all that really matters. People can think Michael is gay/asexual whatever, that’s fine, because neither one of them makes him a criminal or takes away from the most important thing about him-he truly loved children and would never harm them. That’s why, like Mesereau, I don’t really care about the other claims in Sullivan’s book that much.

        That is a bit frustrating. Show me one person who can say they don’t like a Michael Jackson song or video. Everybody at some level is smitten by him or likes him for one thing or another. Even though I said I don’t consider myself a “fan”, I am still a supporter. I don’t defend every decision he made, or think all his music is amazing and I would rather read about the allegations than about his creative process, which is why I refrain from using the fan label.

        Blech, Dimond was probably too stupid to even know that’s a line from Billie Jean. She doesn’t even know how to spell Billie Jean (saw an article where she wrote Billy).

        By the way, Raven, I was listening to Mr. Mesereau on an old episode of the same radio show, and I believe you called in to ask him a question about Jonathan Spence? that was an excellent question. Something that I had once read on a hater site and felt disturbed by, because there is no defense for that. I’m glad there are knowledgeable fans who ask the important questions. He even said at the end that he was impressed with the amount of research people did before asking him questions. It amazes me how people who call themselves lifelong “fans” know less about the allegations than I do.

    2. Jones admitted that she formerly ‘ran with the pack’ of celebrity tabloid hounds — especially as it chased down Michael Jackson — until she covered the trial with her own eyes from INSIDE the courtroom. Whatever epiphany she had at that moment IMO had more to do with the ugly realization that the media (of which she was a champion and foot soldier) could, at will, literally and deliberately drag a person to slow death with the mobs cheering because they saw NOT with their own eyes but through the eyes of the media. Jones knew that she was complicit in helping to create that climate. Whatever vestige of ethics that remained in her must have cried out until she couldn’t ignore it any longer. Jones could have kept quiet and gone with the flow. Others did, and still do. Instead, she broke with the pack and found her own voice, and she has paid a certain price for it. Michael Jackson was the catalyst — as he often was and still is — for change, one person at a time.

      1. She said in a later interview that back in the day, she covered various stories about Michael. She essentially was a tabloid journalist who hounded celebrities at one point. She said in that same interview that when the Chandler allegations first came out, she didn’t care about them at all because she thought it was a PR stunt like the Elephant man’s bones and hyperbaric chamber crap.

        It always amazed me that although the people who consider Michael to be guilty do so because of the Chandler settlement, his reputation bounced back after that fiasco and not after 2005 when he was tried and acquitted. He went on to make albums and break records in the late 90’s, but after 2005, he was just a ghost of his former self. When people say 1993 ruined him, I disagree. He cemented that as part of his legacy by making virtually every song off the HIStory album reflect the scandal in one way or another (and would even go on to perform the anti-Sneddon anthem during the HIStory would tour) , whereas after 2005, he never spoke of the trial. I think most people have accepted that the 2005 trial was bogus but it’s the Chandler settlement that still leaves a trace of a dark cloud surrounding him. It’s also interesting to note that he wasn’t indicted in 93 (the more “troubling” allegations) but was indicted for the idiotic Arvizo case. In my opinion, that’s because Jordan never testified himself in front of the grand jury whereas Gavin did. It’s hard to say “nope there’s no need to investigate this” when a child tells you to their face that they were molested. And since there was no cross examination, he would seem more believable.

Leave a Reply