Michael Jackson Molestation Accuser: He Kept Me Out of School ... To Molest Me

SEHF · May 2014

5/14/2014 6:50 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF [size=18pt]EXCLUSIVE[/size]

The lawyer for the latest Michael Jackson sexual molestation accuser is coming out swinging ... telling TMZ the pop star routinely made the young boy skip school so he could be "available" to MJ. James Safechuck's lawyer, Maryann Marzano, tells TMZ ... MJ publicly flaunted his relationship with the boy, making it appear they were best friends and Safechuck was Michael's protege. The lawyer says in reality MJ was privately molesting the kid. As TMZ previously reported, James Safechuck (who appeared alongside MJ in a 1987 Pepsi commercial) is accusing Jackson of years of sexual abuse. MJ estate attorney Howard Weitzman has called the allegations "false and scurrilous." Marzano says a "narcissistic" MJ would prevent Safechuck from going to school as a 10 and 11-year-old so the boy could be available to him when he was on tour. Marzano tells TMZ, "If there is still any question about the predatory nature of Michael Jackson’s so-called ‘friendships’ with young boys, it should be laid to rest by the indisputable facts of what Michael did to James Safechuck." The specific accusations are sealed, but Marzano says the case against Michael is airtight. Read more:

Do · May 2014

Why is no one questioning the behaviour of the parents of these youngsters? Were they pimping out their kids? They are just as guilty, allowing their kids to skip school because they want their kids (and themselves) near a big superstar.

suspicious mind · May 2014

perhaps we will now hear again from liza with z :icon_lol:

ShyBleuEyes · May 2014

on 1400105302:

 Why is no one questioning the behaviour of the parents of these youngsters? Were they pimping out their kids?[size=12pt] They are just as guilty, allowing their kids to skip school because they want their kids (and themselves) near a big superstar. 

[/size] Right!

Datroot · May 2014

If I remember rightly, Safechuck's parents were on MJ's payroll at the time.

applehead250609 · May 2014

on 1400099534:

 [size=20pt]Jermaine Didn't Mean Michael Jackson Would Be NOTHING Without Jackson 5[/size] 5/14/2014 6:50 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF [size=18pt]EXCLUSIVE[/size] The lawyer for the latest Michael Jackson sexual molestation accuser is coming out swinging ... telling TMZ the pop star routinely made the young boy skip school so he could be "available" to MJ. James Safechuck's lawyer, Maryann Marzano, tells TMZ ... MJ publicly flaunted his relationship with the boy, making it appear they were best friends and Safechuck was Michael's protege. The lawyer says in reality MJ was privately molesting the kid. As TMZ previously reported, James Safechuck (who appeared alongside MJ in a 1987 Pepsi commercial) is accusing Jackson of years of sexual abuse. MJ estate attorney Howard Weitzman has called the allegations "false and scurrilous." Marzano says a "narcissistic" MJ would prevent Safechuck from going to school as a 10 and 11-year-old so the boy could be available to him when he was on tour. Marzano tells TMZ, "If there is still any question about the predatory nature of Michael Jackson’s so-called ‘friendships’ with young boys, it should be laid to rest by the indisputable facts of what Michael did to James Safechuck." The specific accusations are sealed, but Marzano says the case against Michael is airtight. Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/05/14/michael-jackson-sexual-molestation-james-safechuck/#ixzz31ixDnMmt

Zac will be next......even if he just talked/cried to/with M.J. on the phone :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: !!!! 

Sandal8259 · May 2014

I think that something is seriously wrong with these people. You do not wait around knowing that something traumatic as this is happening to your child and you turned a blind eye. I do not give a you know what how much money a person have or how famous they are. If you do something as traumatic(as it was claimed to be) to my child, you will not be walking this earth when I am finish with you. Claiming this happened during the timeframe of the late 80's. Come on, he takes you out of school and the school does not say anything about this again, this is a very sad case, because there are many cases out there where children are being abused every second of everyday and no one is doing a dam thing about it.

Souza · May 2014

on 1400309177:

 

on 1400099534:

 [size=20pt]Jermaine Didn't Mean Michael Jackson Would Be NOTHING Without Jackson 5[/size] 5/14/2014 6:50 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF [size=18pt]EXCLUSIVE[/size] The lawyer for the latest Michael Jackson sexual molestation accuser is coming out swinging ... telling TMZ the pop star routinely made the young boy skip school so he could be "available" to MJ. James Safechuck's lawyer, Maryann Marzano, tells TMZ ... MJ publicly flaunted his relationship with the boy, making it appear they were best friends and Safechuck was Michael's protege. The lawyer says in reality MJ was privately molesting the kid. As TMZ previously reported, James Safechuck (who appeared alongside MJ in a 1987 Pepsi commercial) is accusing Jackson of years of sexual abuse. MJ estate attorney Howard Weitzman has called the allegations "false and scurrilous." Marzano says a "narcissistic" MJ would prevent Safechuck from going to school as a 10 and 11-year-old so the boy could be available to him when he was on tour. Marzano tells TMZ, "If there is still any question about the predatory nature of Michael Jackson’s so-called ‘friendships’ with young boys, it should be laid to rest by the indisputable facts of what Michael did to James Safechuck." The specific accusations are sealed, but Marzano says the case against Michael is airtight. Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/05/14/michael-jackson-sexual-molestation-james-safechuck/#ixzz31ixDnMmt 

 Zac will be next......even if he just talked/cried to/with M.J. on the phone :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol: !!!! 

Yeah I honestly have a big problem with you laughing about these horrible allegations. So try to explain again what is so funny...

marumjj · May 2014

on 1400105302:

 Why is no one questioning the behaviour of the parents of these youngsters? Were they pimping out their kids? They are just as guilty, allowing their kids to skip school because they want their kids (and themselves) near a big superstar.

I totally agree, the authorization of the parents, makes the claim is ridiculous.

suspicious mind · May 2014

ummm twitter front (sorry i know taboo but i don't know where else to go with it) is in some sort of umm confrontation with someone named mjfacts. poking around on this persons feed is see this letter he posted i guess from a lawyer to one of the parents who received payments i guess. if someone could make it bigger that would be great. but what i noticed is that in the language it never says anything about anything being done to this child only that he is not to divulge the "particulars of what he has learned about mr. jackson" i thought this was interesting. remember how "dear sweet " front :icon_e_wink: went off on me when i question his use of the word blackmail? there was and or is something that was being kept but what was it? can i ask , does anyone know if these molestation claims make it to court could it be brought out just exactly what these "particulars" might have been or are that likely have nothing to do with molesting young boys?

RK · June 2014

diane demons involvement in all of this mess......

suspicious mind · June 2014

out of curiosity are there any adult images of this kid around out there?

Billie J · June 2014

on 1401816114:

 out of curiosity are there any adult images of this kid around out there?

Here:[size=10pt][/size]

Billie J · June 2014

on 1401566731:

 ummm twitter front (sorry i know taboo but i don't know where else to go with it) is in some sort of umm confrontation with someone named mjfacts. poking around on this persons feed is see this letter he posted i guess from a lawyer to one of the parents who received payments i guess. if someone could make it bigger that would be great. but what i noticed is that in the language it never says anything about anything being done to this child only that he is not to divulge the "particulars of what he has learned about mr. jackson" i thought this was interesting. remember how "dear sweet " front :icon_e_wink: went off on me when i question his use of the word blackmail? there was and or is something that was being kept but what was it? can i ask , does anyone know if these molestation claims make it to court could it be brought out just exactly what these "particulars" might have been or are that likely have nothing to do with molesting young boys?

Is it James Safechuck or Jimmy Safechuck? Because in the media it says James and in the letter it says to your son Jimmy...Fake letter?

starchild · June 2014

on 1401876912:

 

on 1401816114:

 out of curiosity are there any adult images of this kid around out there? 

 Here:[size=10pt][/size] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629445/Flood-Michael-Jackson-sex-abuse-victims-come-forward-claims-married-father-starred-Pepsi-ad-star-filed-lawsuit.html

Just read the link provided by Billie J. I am beginning to wonder if this new push for anybody and everybody to come forward with sexual abuse claims against MJ is a distraction, i.e., a means to discredit MJ before he comes back and (thinking outside the box here) potentially exposes a powerful ring of true sexual predators. Maybe some folks have gotten wind that he's alive and perhaps wants to come back once his name is cleared. The ongoing nature of this issue just doesn't make sense and begs the question of whether there might be particular people behind it all, but WHO are they? Just brainstorming. IDK.

suspicious mind · June 2014

i notice that both "victims" came to the realization of their abuse after they became fathers and had therapy.

MJonmind · June 2014

Rebati22, Lucerne, 2 weeks ago It is sad the public witch hunt of Michael Jackson will never stop. He was different yes, but it does not give people the right to gossip, make assumptions and false allegations, when they know nothing about him. The police, FBI and media have been all over him for years but have never found any evidence. What irritates me most is the timing - the Arvizo story came out the very day MJ's album 'Number Ones' hit the shelves, Robson supported MJ during his trial and defended him even after death, but on the day the AEG trial started came out with allegations, and now this guy goes public the very day MJ's posthumous album 'Excape' is out. Corey Feldman was also friends with MJ and said police tried to make him say that MJ molested him. He told them nothing happened but other big names in Hollywood did - they were not interested... I feel sorry for true victims of sexual abuse but this case sadly shows that it can also be used to bring down an innocent person without any evidence at all.

Do · June 2014

on 1401877410:

 Is it James Safechuck or Jimmy Safechuck? Because in the media it says James and in the letter it says to your son Jimmy...Fake letter?

It's the same as Jordie / Jordan Chandler, once you get older, you want to use a more adult version of your name.

Do · June 2014

on 1401566731:

 ummm twitter front (sorry i know taboo but i don't know where else to go with it) is in some sort of umm confrontation with someone named mjfacts. poking around on this persons feed is see this letter he posted i guess from a lawyer to one of the parents who received payments i guess. if someone could make it bigger that would be great. but what i noticed is that in the language it never says anything about anything being done to this child only that he is not to divulge the "particulars of what he has learned about mr. jackson" i thought this was interesting. remember how "dear sweet " front :icon_e_wink: went off on me when i question his use of the word blackmail? there was and or is something that was being kept but what was it? can i ask , does anyone know if these molestation claims make it to court could it be brought out just exactly what these "particulars" might have been or are that likely have nothing to do with molesting young boys?

Do you also have a link were I can view the whole letter? I know I'm going to go totally out of line with this, and for now I'm still leaning towards Michael's innocence, but i can't help remember La Toya's interview with Geraldo Rivera on February 21, 1994:

"Why are you so convinced in your head that he is guilty?" "Because of what I've seen, because of what I know, because of what my mother has done,"... "Because of what she showed me. Because of the things that she says to me about Michael, that I refused to believe at the time. My mother actually was screaming for me one day, and I ran into the room. I--frantically--I thought something was wrong, something had happened. And she was showing me this check and I said, 'Yeah, so. What about it?' And she says, 'Well, look at it.' And the check, of course, was one and a lot of zeros behind it. And she says, 'Latoya, this is one million dollars!' I said, 'So?' And she goes, 'But look who it's written to.' And, of course, at that particular time it was... Written to the last name of the little boy that he was with all that time. But it was written to the father, and not to the little boy. It was in the father's name. And [Mother] called [Michael] a very bad name. There was another check behind that, and I said, 'Mother, please, let's leave.' I said, 'We shouldn't be in here I don't want this.'" "And you recognize the name?" "Yes." "All right. Don't tell us the name, but describe the person to whom it was written--the father." "I don't know the father." "Was he a show business person?" "No. The father, supposedly, is a garbage collector--or, was a garbage collector, I should say, at that particular time."

It turned out that the name of the boy who's name wasn't mentioned in the interview, was Jimmy Safechuck. La Toya claims that everything she said at that time about Michael being guilty was because she was totally brainwashed by Jack Gordon. She said she was told to read a statement at Tel Aviv that was written by Jack. But what she mentioned on Geraldo seems not to be made up by her, because of the above letter about the payment to the Safechucks. Now, because Michael allegedly paid a million dollars to the parents still doesn't mean that he molested the boy, however, I have to admit it gives me a really bad taste in my mouth. Those amounts are just too high for a friendly gesture. If all of this turns out to be true (which ofcourse I don't hope and can't comprehend at this time) then, if I were James, I would sue my parents too, for 'selling' me and keeping me from going to school. Look guys, I understand if you are going to be mad at me and maybe it really is all a big conspiracy, but I just don't understand these big payments and the many many expensive gifts, especially to the parents of the kids. This is giving me a bad vibe.

suspicious mind · June 2014

on 1401994217:

 

on 1401566731:

 ummm twitter front (sorry i know taboo but i don't know where else to go with it) is in some sort of umm confrontation with someone named mjfacts. poking around on this persons feed is see this letter he posted i guess from a lawyer to one of the parents who received payments i guess. if someone could make it bigger that would be great. but what i noticed is that in the language it never says anything about anything being done to this child only that he is not to divulge the "particulars of what he has learned about mr. jackson" i thought this was interesting. remember how "dear sweet " front :icon_e_wink: went off on me when i question his use of the word blackmail? there was and or is something that was being kept but what was it? can i ask , does anyone know if these molestation claims make it to court could it be brought out just exactly what these "particulars" might have been or are that likely have nothing to do with molesting young boys? 

 Do you also have a link were I can view the whole letter? I know I'm going to go totally out of line with this, and for now I'm still leaning towards Michael's innocence, but i can't help remember La Toya's interview with Geraldo Rivera on February 21, 1994: 

"Why are you so convinced in your head that he is guilty?" "Because of what I've seen, because of what I know, because of what my mother has done,"... "Because of what she showed me. Because of the things that she says to me about Michael, that I refused to believe at the time. My mother actually was screaming for me one day, and I ran into the room. I--frantically--I thought something was wrong, something had happened. And she was showing me this check and I said, 'Yeah, so. What about it?' And she says, 'Well, look at it.' And the check, of course, was one and a lot of zeros behind it. And she says, 'Latoya, this is one million dollars!' I said, 'So?' And she goes, 'But look who it's written to.' And, of course, at that particular time it was... Written to the last name of the little boy that he was with all that time. But it was written to the father, and not to the little boy. It was in the father's name. And [Mother] called [Michael] a very bad name. There was another check behind that, and I said, 'Mother, please, let's leave.' I said, 'We shouldn't be in here I don't want this.'" "And you recognize the name?" "Yes." "All right. Don't tell us the name, but describe the person to whom it was written--the father." "I don't know the father." "Was he a show business person?" "No. The father, supposedly, is a garbage collector--or, was a garbage collector, I should say, at that particular time."

 It turned out that the name of the boy who's name wasn't mentioned in the interview, was Jimmy Safechuck. La Toya claims that everything she said at that time about Michael being guilty was because she was totally brainwashed by Jack Gordon. She said she was told to read a statement at Tel Aviv that was written by Jack. But what she mentioned on Geraldo seems not to be made up by her, because of the above letter about the payment to the Safechucks. Now, because Michael allegedly paid a million dollars to the parents still doesn't mean that he molested the boy, however, I have to admit it gives me a really bad taste in my mouth. Those amounts are just too high for a friendly gesture. If all of this turns out to be true (which ofcourse I don't hope and can't comprehend at this time) then, if I were James, I would sue my parents too, for 'selling' me and keeping me from going to school. Look guys, I understand if you are going to be mad at me and maybe it really is all a big conspiracy, but I just don't understand these big payments and the many many expensive gifts, especially to the parents of the kids. This is giving me a bad vibe.

@Do i didn't keep a link to the persons twitter. i just noticed an exchange between them and front and poked around and saw this. this is how it is on the feed (is that what you call it?), cut off like this. i didn't take it that it had to mean the safechuck kid. what you posted was very interesting. i wonder though what is was that kate had allegedly done and i also wonder if she didn't just think that michael was giving away monies that she thought should be going somewhere else. :icon_e_wink:

Do · June 2014

on 1402015619:

 @Do i didn't keep a link to the persons twitter. i just noticed an exchange between them and front and poked around and saw this. this is how it is on the feed (is that what you call it?), cut off like this. i didn't take it that it had to mean the safechuck kid. what you posted was very interesting. i wonder though what is was that kate had allegedly done and i also wonder if she didn't just think that michael was giving away monies that she thought should be going somewhere else. :icon_e_wink:

Don't worry, I don't know much about twitter either, but I am just very curious if this letter could be genuine. From the Geraldo interview: [size=10pt]"Because of the things that she says to me about Michael, that I refused to believe at the time." "And [Mother] called [Michael] a very bad name." [/size] This is telling me that Katherine assumed were the money was for, and it was not just friendly gifts. Reading the letter you posted, we can see that there is a lot of talking about confidential agreements and 'not to disclose to anybody the particulars you have learnt'. Reading further, there is the mentioning of a civil claim (I assume that it reads: ".....that you make no civil claim on Mr. Jackson......."). Doesn't seem like just a gift to me. This is another interview La Toya did at that time. Here she is using the 'bad name' Katherine was calling Michael.

Unfortunately, La Toya seemed to be very honest and not 'scripted' at all. If Jack was brainwashing here, I think he was brainwashing here to tell the truth about her family. Don't know what to think of all of this :icon_e_sad: Btw, MJfacts has a site with lots of this stuff about Michael.....but I couldn't find the letter. And it's important to find out if this letter really exists.

starchild · June 2014

on 1401994217:

 La Toya claims that everything she said at that time about Michael being guilty was because she was totally brainwashed by Jack Gordon. She said she was told to read a statement at Tel Aviv that was written by Jack. But what she mentioned on Geraldo seems not to be made up by her, because of the above letter about the payment to the Safechucks. Now, because Michael allegedly paid a million dollars to the parents still doesn't mean that he molested the boy, however, I have to admit it gives me a really bad taste in my mouth. Those amounts are just too high for a friendly gesture. If all of this turns out to be true (which ofcourse I don't hope and can't comprehend at this time) then, if I were James, I would sue my parents too, for 'selling' me and keeping me from going to school. Look guys, I understand if you are going to be mad at me and maybe it really is all a big conspiracy, but I just don't understand these big payments and the many many expensive gifts, especially to the parents of the kids. This is giving me a bad vibe.

Hi, Do. The excerpt below, from La Toya's 2011 autobiography Starting Over (pp. 96-99), reveals further information about the Tel Aviv press conference. Maybe some have already read the book, and so the excerpt is a refresher. As most know, Jack “Gordon” (referred to in the excerpt) is La Toya’s abusive ex-husband. In short, the 1993 press conference in Tel Aviv was presumably the first of several similar occasions involving media on which La Toya felt forced to speak negatively of Michael. The boldface on portions of the quoted text is added by me.

Gordon handed me a piece of paper. “Here, you’re reading this,” he said gruffly. “What is this?” All of a sudden it dawned on me: that press was here for me, and I didn’t have the slightest clue until just that moment. I felt the world close in around me as I was filled with rising panic. That was the kind of life Gordon had me leading. He was always forcing me to do things in the public eye without preparation or warning, and with the constant knowledge that if I didn’t perform impeccably, the consequences would be swift and painful. “What is this?” I asked again nervously. “Can I go to the ladies’ room?” “No! Read it.” Before I had time to even collect myself, Gordon pushed me out of the car into an explosion of blazing flashbulbs as eager paparazzi jostled for position and shouted my name. “La Toya! La Toya!” I couldn’t even imagine what terrible words I was about to be forced to speak. But I knew there was no getting out of it, so I pulled myself together. Joseph had taught all of us children that whenever we did something, we should do it professionally and with as much enthusiasm and energy as possible. I didn’t want to be filmed looking down, with my face hidden in the piece of paper Gordon had given me. So I was trying to read words that I had never seen before, through these enormous sunglasses that obstructed my vision, while keeping my head held high, as if I were expressing my own thoughts. Even as I began to read, I still didn’t know what I was saying, but I did know that, whatever it was, if I didn’t read it properly, the way Gordon wanted me to, he was going to hurt me. Then, with horror, as I was speaking, I realized that the statement was about Michael. It wasn’t the positive message I had been preaching in public about the allegations against Michael. It was the worst possible thing I could say about a person who was innocent, and I knew Michael was innocent. But Gordon didn’t care. He was thrilled to see Michael’s image sullied in this way. He was making me say just the opposite of what I had been saying. Back then, I didn’t know why he was making me do this, or who had put him up to it, but it was horrible. Not only that, Gordon was making me speak out in front of a mob of news cameras, which would broadcast the statement around the world. I knew better than to display any emotion on my face, but my heart was breaking as I spoke the words he forced upon me. I truly believed that if I didn’t say what I had been told to say, Gordon and his mob buddies would surely kill Michael. Gordon had drilled this threat into me, again and again, until I knew it to be true. So, although it was an excruciating choice, I decided that it was better to continue reading and do whatever it took to save Michael in the moment. I figured, afterward, when I knew Michael was safe, Michael and I could discuss what had happened, and I could try to make him understand how I had been forced to say such things. At the time, this reasoning allowed me to endure what was an impossible moment. But now that I look back from outside Gordon’s control, this press conference is among the biggest regrets in my life. I can’t stand to see the footage because it makes me so sick with remorse. I honestly think that I would rather have let Gordon kill me than make me say those words. When I was finished reading those awful words from the piece of paper Gordon had handed me, he immediately took over the microphone. His words were meant to keep me convinced, and make the public think, that my family was trying to kidnap and kill me, so I wouldn’t try to escape or speak to my family, and no one would try to reunite me with them. “There’s been two major kidnapping attempts on La Toya . . . that were stopped!” Gordon said to the media. “They were paid and financed by Michael Jackson.” I later learned that Gordon had attempted to extort money and favors from Michael’s handlers by telling them that if they didn’t comply with his demands, he would have me make this very statement. I was horrified to discover this plot and just how much thought Gordon had put into planning the whole awful event. I had been set up to commit a terrible transgression against my beloved brother so Gordon could profit. Even more disturbing, I also discovered, long after that awful day in Tel Aviv, that the allegations against Michael had been just as manufactured as my press conference was, and with a similar goal in mind. Much like Gordon with me in that moment, evil forces were surrounding Michael. They wanted to tarnish this reputation to impoverish him and break his spirit, and perhaps force him to sell his valuable music catalog. At the time, Gordon was secretly meeting with Michael’s former manager Frank DiLeo and Michael’s attorney John Branca, whom Howard Weitzman had brought back into the picture in November 1993 to work on the case on Michael’s behalf. Weitzman was enlisted by Bert Fields, Michael’s lead attorney at the time, in around September or October of 1993. Bert Fields, as well as Michael, and the private investigator on the case, Anthony Pellicano, wanted very much to fight to prove Michael’s innocence. Michael was actually looking forward to his court date, which would have been March 21, 1994. According to Michael, it was John Branca’s idea not to take the case to trial, but to settle it instead. Michael always regretted that, because the settlement made Michael appear guilty of those horrific charges. What I didn’t know then was that, at the same time, Branca’s law firm also represented Michael’s label, Sony, which was desperate to get its hands on Michael’s music publishing catalog. That seemed like a clear conflict of interest to me. As Michael’s music publishing started to grow, everyone wanted a piece of it, and how convenient would it be if Michael was convicted of the child molestation charges? He would not only serve prison time, but his damaged reputation would ruin him, bankrupt him, and make it likely he would have to sell his prized possession, his music catalog. Obviously, because I was his sister, if I came out in support of the allegations, it made them more likely to stick. And even without a conviction, his ruined reputation could still have forced him to sell. I later came to believe that, because Gordon controlled me, he tried to earn favor with these powerful men by helping ruin my brother in a way that was likely to benefit them. Gordon would have been glad to do this because he hated Michael’s success.

Do · June 2014

Hi Starchild, I read La Toya's books, both of them. And they contradict eachother on so many levels. But I can't believe that one can make up so many lies about their own blood because someone was forcing her. This was 'killing' Michael as well. I think she was truly mad at one point at her family, because of things that happened in the past. Ofcourse I truly want to believe in Michael's innocence. But I have to admit there was sometimes a little bit of doubt in the back of my mind. Seeing the excerpt of the letter posted by Suspicious, the doubt came back again. I hate it, but it's there. Don't get me wrong, even IF Michael made a terrible mistake, I believe he really did not see that what he was doing was wrong. He truly loved children and loved to be child with the child, and he might have believed he was not harming (as in violence) anyone, that he was no 'jack the ripper'. I believe he was a victim himself as well. I will never judge him for it, because I never walked in his shoes, but it could be really sad for both sides, if true. La Toya claiming that she 'read' a statement that was fabricated by Jack (who WAS abusive, true) at the press conference I do not believe (I didn't get that impression at all when I watched it). Remember Jermaine at one point also expressed 'doubts' about his brothers innocence. Whether that was done out of jealousy or whatever, I don't know.

starchild · June 2014

on 1402077573:

 Hi Starchild, I read La Toya's books, both of them. And they contradict eachother on so many levels. But I can't believe that one can make up so many lies about their own blood because someone was forcing her. This was 'killing' Michael as well. I think she was truly mad at one point at her family, because of things that happened in the past. Ofcourse I truly want to believe in Michael's innocence. But I have to admit there was sometimes a little bit of doubt in the back of my mind. Seeing the excerpt of the letter posted by Suspicious, the doubt came back again. I hate it, but it's there. Don't get me wrong, even IF Michael made a terrible mistake, I believe he really did not see that what he was doing was wrong. He truly loved children and loved to be child with the child, and he might have believed he was not harming (as in violence) anyone, that he was no 'jack the ripper'. I believe he was a victim himself as well. I will never judge him for it, because I never walked in his shoes, but it could be really sad for both sides, if true. La Toya claiming that she 'read' a statement that was fabricated by Jack (who WAS abusive, true) at the press conference I do not believe (I didn't get that impression at all when I watched it). Remember Jermaine at one point also expressed 'doubts' about his brothers innocence. Whether that was done out of jealousy or whatever, I don't know.

I hear what you're saying. It's difficult, if not impossible, to judge the true nature and extent of control Jack Gordon exercised over La Toya. All we really have to go on are her own words. That said, here are a couple more quotes from Starting Over:

I never believed I would survive to write a second book, but by the grace of God, here I am. Twenty long years have passed since I wrote my first autobiography, La Toya. The truth is that I didn’t want to author that first book. My ex-manager, Jack Gordon, made me publish the book and speak out against my will in its pages. (Prologue)

My book La Toya was published on September 12, 1991, and my family was extremely unhappy about much of what it contained. Although they knew that Gordon was behind every word, they still had to live with the attention it received. [. . .] During interviews, I had to say that the book had been my idea, and that every word it contained was true. (p. 86)

Regarding statements made by Jermaine, I don’t know anything about that.

Do · June 2014

Hi Starchild, La Toya claims that Jack Gordon had been the man who'd manufactured all of those claims she'd said about her brother, how is that even possible if she knew the identity of one of these parents receiving money from Michael? That doesn't make sense to me. As for Jermaine: /> I'm really confused at the moment.

starchild · June 2014

on 1402098144:

 Hi Starchild, La Toya claims that Jack Gordon had been the man who'd manufactured all of those claims she'd said about her brother, how is that even possible if she knew the identity of one of these parents receiving money from Michael? That doesn't make sense to me. As for Jermaine: http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.nl/2011/07/confirmed-jermaine-jackson-did-write.html I'm really confused at the moment.

Hey again, Do. I am not incredibly familiar with the timeline of all these events. Nevertheless, according to La Toya’s statements in Starting Over, Gordon was evidently in cahoots with Michael’s advisors as well as with the “powerful men” (mentioned in the next to last sentence of the excerpt in my previous post) responsible for bringing about the child molestation allegations against Michael (don’t know if advisors = powerful men). In short, it's conceivable that Gordon was in the know and feeding information to La Toya. About Jermaine. I took a look at the link you posted. Honestly, when given a choice, I am always more inclined to first believe what a person actually says as opposed to what is said about him, or about what that person is supposed to have said, and so on, and on :icon_lol: (you know, innocent until proven guilty). Regarding Jermaine's unpublished manuscript for the book Legacy: Surviving the Best and the Worst, the following is what Jermaine had to say about it in an interview with Larry King (March 6, 2006):

Michael Jackson Molestation Accuser: He Kept Me Out of School ... To Molest Me

Comments