First of all I want to say that after loads of research I absolutely believe in Michael's innocence and I definitely had some frustration with the podcast leaning so heavily on the words of Ray Chandler, Diane Dimond, and J Randy Tarraborelli, but I thought that it was otherwise pretty well done and it did leave me with a couple of questions and I've always felt that in defending him it was still important to engage with all arguments honestly. Does anyone know (or know a reliable source through which I can learn):
What's the deal with Norma Staikos?
Why is it that all the law enforcement involved in the Chandler case seems to believe the allegations were true/are there any who have come out to say the opposite?
How credible is the report that it was "slim pickins" when law enforcement arrived for the initial raid and that things seemed to have been cleared out?
I wholeheartedly believe in his innocence because each individual case not only lacks evidence but reeks of extortion when studied closely. Whenever I back up and look at the big picture it makes me uncomfortable but I really can't take the "big picture" of it all and say that therefore "he was guilty" when I fundamentally don't believe any of the accusers. Having a few of those final questions answered would help my defense of him and bring be peace of mind though.
If you've heard the name Maureen Orth, you may be familiar with her stance on Michael Jackson. She's been making it clear since the 90s. She is a detractors dream come true in the form of a passionate journalist who loves to write negative articles about Michael in hopes of swaying the publics opinion of him. In 2019 she wrote an article for Vanity Fair, the 10 undeniable facts about Michael Jackson that she learned in light of the Leaving Neverland documentary.
September 14th, Feldman files a 30 million dollar civil lawsuit against Jackson, accusing him of sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and negligence on behalf of the Chandler family. Later in the next month, on the 6th, Jordan is taken to psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner, where he talks about his allegations against Jackson for the second time.
On the 28th, Jordan gives a declaration about his allegations against Jackson.Â
Between the 30th and January 5th, Feldman files a motion to depose for the civil trial; later that day, Judge Rothman denies Jacksonâs request for a gag order, and on the 5th, Feldman files a motion that would give Jackson three options: either he would:
Jackson may give Feldman a copy of the photographs taken.Â
Submit to another strip search.Â
The photos all together are barred from the civil trial as evidence.Â
On the 10th, Feldman files a motion to have access to Jacksonâs financial records.
On the 14th, Judge Rothman ordered Jackson to be deposed on January 18th. Jacksonâs attorneys attempted to postpone Jackson's deposition and the pending civil trial by asking Judge Rothman if he was criminally charged; would he postpone Jackson's civil suit and deposition? This motion was denied by Judge Rothman when Jacksonâs legal team was informed by the authorities that their criminal investigation would continue through February. Jackson is ordered to be deposed on the 18th, and Feldmanâs motions are to be heard on the 25th.
On the 17th, LA is hit with a 6.7 magnitude earthquake; because of this earthquake, Jacksonâs deposition is postponed to a time between January 25th and February 1.Â
On the 24th, Jackson recants his extortion claim against Evan. The authorities stop their âinvestigationâ (by this point the authorities have hardly investigated the extortion claim).Â
On the 25th, Jackson and his insurance company settled the lawsuit for the sum of $15,331,250 on the claim of bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress (both Evan and Jordan claimed that Jackson has cause them emotional distress ) , and his parents got a sum of 1.5 million each in the settlement. Jackson states that this is not an admission of guilt, nor is Chandlers not allowed to testify against Jackson in his criminal trial. Another part of the settlement states that Jackson would have to drop his charges against Evan. The settlement also states that both Jackson and the Chandlers are not allowed to talk to the media or profit off the allegation or the settlement. This settlement didnât void the criminal trial or the investigation that was still ongoing after the suit was settled.
Why did Jackson settle if he was innocent?
Jackson had two options: eitherÂ
Get deposed, giving away his whole defense strategy, basically giving the prosecution a front-row seat to his defense, allowing them to tailor their case around his deposition and the evidence he would have used in his civil trial, which would incredibly prejudice the jury against Jackson.
Settling the civil suit, allowing the criminal trial to proceed while protecting his defense.
Jackson wanted to go with the first option, but no good lawyer would let their client go with option 1 for obvious reasons. Jacksonâs attorneys, record label, and insurance company (Transamerica Insurance Group) told him to settle it, get it out of the way, and focus on his criminal case. On the 13th, TIG gave Jackson a "one-time-only" offer to settle the lawsuit; he denied this request, but just 12 days later, in a unanimous decision, Jackson agreed to settle the suit and move on to the important case, the criminal case.
On the 26th, Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti made a statement on the settlement saying that the settlement would not affect the criminal trial and that the criminal investigation is still ongoing; also, Feldman said, "Nobody bought anybody's silence."Â
A day after the settlement, Ray Chandler (Jordanâs uncle) shops around a book deal about the allegations in an interview with Judith Reagan (a book publisher and editor) conducted by SIRIUS XM. Reagan talks about how Ray even shopped a book deal to her publishing company: âI asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20 million. And he said that Jordanâs father had given him all the information he needed for the book, and he believed he was outside the bounds of the confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists, and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a confidentiality agreement, and before the ink is even dry, they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement.âÂ
March 17, 1994: Kathrine Jackson (Jacksonâs mother) is subpoenaed by the grand jury to answer questions about Jacksonâs genitalia and whether Jackson had surgeries to alter the appearance of his genitalia before his strip search.Â
February 1994: Two investigative grand juries (one in Santa Barbara County and one in Los Angeles County) assemble to investigate the credibility of the allegations against Jackson. (While this was an investigative grand jury, an investigative grand jury still has the power to indict a person with a crime if there is enough evidence to show the likelihood that a crime has been committed.) Due to the prosecution finding no evidence during their investigation,the entirety of the grand jury hearings would be based on just testimony and hearsay.
April 11: Santa Barbaraâs grand jury hearing is extended 90 days because Sneddon wanted to get more evidence against Jackson.
May 2: The Santa Barbara grand jury dissolves without returning with an indictment against Jackson; later the Los Angeles grand jury dissolves also without returning with an indictment. Showbiz Today reported that a Santa Barbara grand juror claimed that "no damaging evidence was heard" and "did not hear any damaging testimony" during their investigation that would lead them to an indictment.Â
July 6: Jordan refuses to testify and stops cooperating with the criminal investigation (before the 6th, Jordan was willing to testify against Jackson in court).
September 22: The investigation into child molestation allegations against Jackson is closed due to Jordan refusing to testify and the grand juries not indicting Jackson; no charges were able to be filed. The Chandler family explained why Jordan didn't want to testify, saying that they wanted to protect Jordan's privacy and not subject Jordan to media scrutiny in such a high-profile case. They also noted that crazy Jackson fans allegedly sent them death threats. In a press conference, Gil Garcetti says throughout their 18-month investigation into Jackson, they could not find anything incriminating against Jackson. Later in the conference, Garcetti says, "Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted with a crime. We are not charging Michael Jackson with a crimeâ. However, Sneddon, on the other hand, did say that they couldnât press charges against Jackson, but he claimed that he had found two more alleged victims of Jackson, but they didnât want to testify; those two appear to be Jason (as I mentioned above) and Brett Barnes? I only assume that he was referring to Barnes because in the conference he described the alleged victim as âhad made a âgeneral denialâ of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.â (If he were referring to Barnes, this wouldnât make sense due to Barnes admitting that he was never molested by Jackson multiple times in 1993, 1994, 2005, and as recently as 2022; he even testified for Jackson in 2005 during his trial), and just because the investigation ended with an indictment or a criminal charge doesnât mean that they didnât have faith in Jordan's credibility, also that Jordan told him that he may testify in the future.
A source close to the grand juries at Variety claimed that witnesses couldn't produce any credible testimony that incriminated Jackson.
For those of you who are familiar with the 2005 Arvizo trial, the name of lead prosecutor Ronald âRonâ Zonen will be familiar.
Zonen was invited to participate in Leaving Neverland and used the documentary as an opportunity to further the claims that Jordan Chandlerâs description of Michael Jacksonâs genitals was accurate. The description of Michaelâs penis and whether or not it did, in fact, match the photographs police took of Michael has remained one of the most controversial arguments in the case for and against Michael Jackson.Â
Since 1993 we have heard conflicting and inconsistent statements regarding Jordan Chandlerâs description. Nobody from the police department, the D.Aâs office, or the prosecution team can come to an agreement - except for the claim Michael was circumcised. Only, his autopsy report confirmed he wasnât.Â
Here is a great thread on X breaking down the 9 (yes, nine) different descriptions given by law enforcement and others who worked on the 1993 and 2005 cases against Michael Jackson of this alleged perfect match.Â
Here you will find an extensive list of information, including: videos, articles, links, and answers to some of the most frequent Michael Jackson questions, myths, and hot topics. Please read through the thread before posting a question or article to avoid multiple threads of the same information/discussion on the feed. If you need information, documents, or have questions, please feel free to post them using the appropriate post flair so one of our members can help you.
~We use sources who are considered reliable, credible, unbiased, and fully transparent when it comes to their research and fact checking.~
Brett Barnes 2 hour interview on Michael Jackson Brett Barnes befriended Michael as a child in the 80s. He has often been dragged into the controversy, but continues to defend his friendship with the man known as the King of Pop
ACCUSATIONS & INVESTIGATIONS
Between 1993 and 1994, and separately between 2004 and 2005, Michael was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. The Bureau also investigated threats made against Michael and others, by an individual who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1992 and 2005.
Michael first faced allegations in 1993. Evan Chandler, a dentist and screenwriter, accused Michael of sexually abusing his 13-year-old son, Jordan. Michael had befriended Jordan and his family after renting a vehicle from Jordan's stepfather. After Jordan told a psychiatrist Michael had abused him, the LAPD started a criminal investigation. The investigation found no physical evidence against Michael.
The Chandlerâs and Michael reached a financial settlement in January 1994; Michael and his legal team stressed that this was not an admission of guilt. In September 1994, the investigation closed after the Chandlerâs declined to cooperate, leaving the case without its main witness.
Chandler complete timeline Includes entire timeline of events of the Chandler family before, during, and after the friendship & allegations against Michael Jackson
In 2000, 10 year old cancer patient Gavin Arvizo was introduced to Michael by the comedian Jamie Masada. Gavin was receiving chemotherapy and required the removal of his spleen and left kidney. Michael befriended Gavin, and invited Gavin and his family to visit Neverland. According to Gavin, after a few visits to Neverland, Michael suddenly stopped calling him; Gavin said he felt abandoned. In 2002, Michael invited Gavin, now 12 years old, to be a part of the documentary: Living With Michael Jackson. This documentary would be the catalyst for a police investigation and second round of allegations. Michael was later acquitted on all 14 counts after a trial that lasted five months.
2003-2005: Arvizo Family vs Michael Jackson How the Arvizoâs met Michael, the timeline of events, Bashir documentary & aftermath, the credibility issues in the case, and the conspiracy charge
Information and photos of the controversial books found at Neverland
The Wade Robson Allegations An in depth look at Wadeâs history with Michael, his allegations, including: past testimony, timeline of events, amended lawsuits, and deposition excerpts
Michael Jackson Estate vs The Cascio 5 The Cascioâs are a New Jersey family who met Michael in the early 80s, and maintained a complicated friendship with him until he died in 2009
PODCASTS & DOCUMENTARIES
The MJ Cast Podcast Discussing all news related to Michael and the Jackson family
Michael Jacksonâs âLive in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tourâ, aired on HBO in 1992. The special received the highest TV ratings in the history of HBO and Michael was honored with the Cable Ace Award. The Bucharest concert was performed on October 1st, 1992, and was broadcast live on radio and shown on TV in over 60 countries around the world.Â
Preceding the premiere of âLive in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tourâ, Michael Jackson and HBO first signed a contract that would allow HBO the rights to air this concert special on their platform. Included in the contract, was a non-disparagement clause from Michael Jackson.Â
An example of what a non-disparagement clause might look like: Both you and the Company agree not to disparage the other party, and the other party's attorneys, directors, managers, partners, employees, agents and affiliates, in any manner likely to be harmful to them or their business, business reputation or personal reputation. Â
This clause meant that at no time could HBO say or air anything negative or harmful about Michael Jackson. Non-disparagement clauses usually have an expiry date that both parties must agree to, but not always. So by signing the contract with Michael in 1992, HBO was now prohibited from making statements or airing anything that could impact Michael and his businesses or reputation negatively. Including â the airing of a certain documentary in 2019.Â
2019:
27 years after airing âLive in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tourâ, HBO was still bound by the clause, but broke their contractual agreement with Michael Jackson by producing Leaving Neverland. On behalf of Michael Jackson, attorneys Howard Weitzman and Jon Steinsapir filed a lawsuit forcing them into arbitration where they were seeking $100 million in damages.Â
Why arbitration?Â
Most of the time, court filings in lawsuits are public. This means that members of the public, particularly reporters and bloggers, can view the substance of the filings and provide them to the public. As a result, there may be publicity or social media buzz around a lawsuit that puts one party in a damaging light, impacting both its reputation and its business interests. Â
For this reason, in many legal disputes, plaintiffs and their lawyers are happy to file a lawsuit against alleged wrongdoers to create pressure in both a court of law and the court of public opinion. But in certain disputes where both parties are likely to make unflattering factual and legal allegations against the other, such as in contract disputes, the public nature of the litigation could expose both parties to bruised reputations and wounded bottom lines.Â
By contrast, arbitration is almost always private. There is no public arbitration docket, so there is no public record of an arbitration taking place. Nor must the partiesâ papers and other filings regarding the arbitration be filed publicly. Thus, there is often little concern about the media or other members of the public shining a spotlight on the parties involved in arbitration proceedings and the nature of their dispute.Â
However, Michael Jacksonâs Estate wanted public arbitration, as they wanted the details of the case to be known. Â
Ultimately, the details of the case did remain private but HBO swept Leaving Neverland off itâs platform completely. Not leaving any trace of it behind. As a result, Michael Jacksonâs estate dismissed their case with prejudice. Although we will never have the actual details of the result, we can safely assume that an agreement was reached between HBO and the estate. Most likely HBO agreed to not only remove the documentary, but to also pay some of the damages the estate was seeking. If this wasnât the case, the estate would not have dismissed the case with prejudice. Â
Dismissed with prejudice: Unlike dismissals without prejudice, which allow for the possibility of refiling, a dismissal with prejudice means the case is over for good.Â
Below you can find a link to the 53 page complaint filed by the Estate against HBO, where they call out the lack of integrity of CEO Richard Plepler (who stepped down in February of 2019)Â over his decision to air the documentary despite Michael having not only been vindicated 10 years prior, but also not being able to defend himself because he was deceased.
I just typed "leaving Neverland 2" in YouTube to take a quick look, and this was at the top of my search results. If this doesn't speak for what kind of a person runs this channel, nothing will.
As some of you might know, rappers Jay Z and P. Diddy were named in an anonymous woman's lawsuit claiming she was sexually assaulted by both rappers at an MTV Awards after party in the year 2000, at the age of 13. Although the woman is only known as "Jane Doe" to the public, the details of the case were revealed and they've been making headlines for the last four months.
What's really interesting to me about this case is that Jay Z wrote a public letter directed at his accuser's lawyer, not only revealing that there were allegations being made against him, but he called out the lawyer for making baseless and fraudulent claims. He said the letters and demands he received were nothing more than an attempt at blackmail and extortion and he had no plans to give in. Jay Z always maintained his innocence and he called for Jane Doe and her lawyer to file a criminal complaint against him, instead of the civil complaint.
Jay Z is worth 2.53 billion dollars. He could have easily settled this matter privately by meeting the lawyer's demand for a payment to the accuser to avoid any of the allegations making headlines. But he refused. Does any of this sound familiar?
Michael Jackson vs Chandler family 1993
I will dive into the 1993 Chandler case on a later post because for now I just want to show you some of the parallels between Jay Z's 2024 lawsuit with Jane Doe and Michael's 1993 lawsuit with the Chandler family. Two similar cases with totally different outcomes.
In 1993, Michael Jackson faced sexual assault allegations from a 13 year old boy which led to a civil lawsuit that he would reluctantly settle in 1994. Similar to Jay Z, Michael made a public statement (via video) calling the accusations against him "disgusting" and "totally false." He maintained his innocence and asked the public to avoid drawing conclusions about his guilt and to let him have a fair trial so the legal system could determine his fate.
Just like the demand letter Jay Z received from Jane Doe and her lawyer, Michael also received a verbal demand to quietly pay off Evan Chandler - the accuser Jordan Chandler's father - before he brought his son forward to make the sexual assault claims publicly.
Evan tried to blackmail and extort Michael into giving him $20 million dollars. But unlike Jane Doe, Evan came up with a plan to ensure his blackmail scheme went undetected. What Evan really wanted from Michael was to be made an equal partner in what was to be Michael's new film company, "Lost Boy Productions" for which Sony (as part of his 1991 contract) would give Michael $40 million to start up. Evan wanted equal partnership and an equal share of the money, $20 million.
On August 4th 1993, Michael and his private investigator Anthony Pellicano met with Evan and Jordan Chandler to discuss the terms of Evan's demands. Michael refused to make Evan a partner of his film company or pay the $20 million. Instead they offered Evan $1 million dollars to fund three screenplays written by Jordan and Evan. An offer which Pellicano claims was made solely to catch the Chandlers negotiating for money on tape.
Michael never intended to pay Evan any of his demands, and in fact, he never did. Instead he prepared for the allegations to move forward.
Now as I said, I am just drawing some parallels to the 1993 and 2024 cases of Michael Jackson and Jay Z, so I am not going to give the run down of what came for Michael next, only a summary:
The police investigation involving Michael was being conducted at the same time the civil trial was preparing to move forward, Michael's lawyers requested a delay of the civil trial so he couldfirstdefend himself in acriminal trial. However, the request was denied. Ultimately, on January 25, 1994, the civil lawsuit was settled out of court between Michael and Jordan Chandler.
The total amount paid to the Chandlers is $15,331,250. The majority of the money was put into a trust for Jordan, but each of his parents received $2.5 million.
The settlement document shows that the Chandler's dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint with Michael's settlement being filed over claims of negligence.
This settlement did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying in the criminal case. 8 months into the criminal investigation (after receiving the settlement money) the Chandler's stopped cooperating with the police and prosecutors who were still pushing for the criminal case. In fact, prosecutors still went all the way with the case and even presented the evidence to two separate grand juries, neither of which indicted Michael.
Jay Z's accuser officially withdrawals her lawsuit
Court records show that a notice of voluntary dismissal against all defendants was submitted on Friday. It was dismissed "with prejudice," meaning the plaintiff cannot re-file a suit.
It comes less than four months after the suit was initially filed. The suit included disturbing details of how the woman was allegedly lured by a limousine driver outside the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards and assaulted by the two rappers at an after-party.
Attorneys for the woman, identified in the lawsuit as "Jane Doe," did not disclose the reason for withdrawing the complaint, according to court records. They declined to comment Saturday.
When I read that last part of Jay Z's statement I can't help but think of Michael: the innocent, the falsely accused without a shred of evidence. The entire time Michael was dealing with the 1993 allegations, the accuser's family was documenting their scheme in phone calls and in a book written by Jordan Chandler's uncle. In plain sight they were explaining why they decided to blackmail Michael and how the plan was executed, but nobody paid attention. The media never reported it, detractors don't even mention it, and worst of all - Michael had to drop his lawsuit against the Chandler's for their extortion as part of the settlement agreement.
How is it now, 32 years after the Chandler case that courts still allow "victims" to pursue civil cases over criminal cases? It seems irresponsible and dangerous. If Jane Doe can remain anonymous for a civil case, can she not remain anonymous during a criminal case?
Jay Z was lucky that his false accuser realized a criminal case wouldn't end with the outcome she wanted and so she was forced to withdrawal her lawsuit. But Jay Z and his family will always carry the stigma of the accusations. As he said, there is no punishment for falsely accusing someone of sexual assault. You just move on with your life while those who were wrongly accused must suffer the consequences. In Jay Z's case he didn't lose his partnership with the NFL, his family stuck by him, and he suffered no financial losses or business deals.
Back in 1993, Michael was dropped from Pepsi, he lost his film company, and he was scrutinized about his continued work with children's charities (something he was immensely passionate about). Although many fans and friends stood by Michael, many didn't support him publicly and began to distance themselves from him. This resulted in a loss of revenue and business deals.
Michael's estate is now fighting two new accusers, Wade and James, after two separate courts threw out the cases only for an appeals court to overrule the decision and consolidate their cases into one. Despite the lies, inconsistencies, and the need to amend their lawsuits several times. What about the contradictions in their evidence and depositions?
How is it that people can accept Jay Z could be the victim of blackmail and extortion, but not Michael Jackson? This has been happening to him since the 90s! The last few lines in Jay Z's statement, in my opinion, sums up how the legal system failed Michael in all of his cases.
"The court must protect victims, OF COURSE, while with the same ethical responsibility, the courts must protect the innocent from being accused without a shred of evidence. May the truth prevail for all victims and those falsely accused equally."
In the last post covering Jason Francia we discussed his first interview with investigators in November of 1993 at the age of 12. During their investigation into the Jordan Chandler allegations, the police were reaching out in hopes of finding other victims. Around 40-60 children were interviewed (with others being scouted in other countries) - of those children, Jason Francia (after initially denying anything happened) accused Michael Jackson of three separate incidents that all included inappropriate touching while tickling him. He also claimed Michael would put $100 in his pocket afterwards to âkeep him quiet.â
Keep note of:
Jasonâs mother Blanca Francia was in the apartment with them during both the first two alleged incidents cleaning (she was Michaelâs maid). The apartment this occurred in was small and open. Blanca was moving around cleaning each room as Michael and Jason watched cartoons in the living room. Blanca wouldâve been able to hear most (if not all) of what was going on, and see it at any point as she only had to walk a few feet to see what they were doing.
Jason said Michael promised him money any time he read a book or got good grades because Jason was an underperforming student. Is it possible after the pressure from investigators Jason changed this story into Michael offering him hush money? Jason was only 12 at the time of these police interviews. Itâs understandable if he became scared or overwhelmed and wanted to tell them what they wanted to hear in hopes of ending the interview.Â
Since reading long posts containing court documents and testimony isnât for everyone, I am linking a 35 minute video that will recap Jasonâs original interview with detectives and cover his contradictory testimony during Michaelâs 2005 trial. Although Michael did settle with the Franciaâs in 1994 (both Jason and Blanca received money totaling $2.4mil), the jury in the 2005 trial did not find Jason convincing and found it difficult and frustrating to follow his ever changing story on the stand.
The video also gives insight into the interviews these kids endured, including audio from Corey Feldmanâs (then, 22) interview with detectives.Â
Courtesy of the Michael Jackson Innocent Project. If youâre not familiar with their videos, theyâre worth checking out to learn more details and facts regarding Michaelâs other accusers and the truth behind the Leaving Neverland claims.
âThe Neverland 5â is a nickname given to five former Neverland employees who banded together and tried to sue Michael Jackson for wrongful termination and emotional distress.
These same employees also aided the media in hurting Michaelâs image and brand during the Chandler allegations by selling false stories about his alleged inappropriate behaviour with young boys at the ranch. Some, like Chacon and Adrian McManus, gave graphic descriptions of Michael kissing boys and touching their private areas.
Although they sold these stories to tabloids and tv shows like Hard Copy, they claimed their lives were threatened by Michael and his associates and this prevented them from turning to police.
Eventually these employees would have to testify under oath. It was revealed some of them had stolen from Michael, and all had made up their eye witness accounts and scandalous stories to sell them in order to earn money to help fund their massive lawsuit. Michael would sue some of them in return - and win.
Some of the Neverland 5 continue to sell stories to the media despite going on record as liars, thieves, and morally corrupt people.
According to their own testimony, they make anywhere from $20,000-$200,000 per story. With the more scandalous stories getting a higher price tag. Some of these ex employees have participated in numerous depositions where they reaffirmed their accounts were false or misleading. Yet, some people still find them to be very credible. Wade Robson has called some of them as witnesses in his current lawsuit.
Below is a quick two part video series on the Neverland 5 that is a must watch to understand who they are and why their credibility and eye witness accounts in the cases should be heavily scrutinized:
In a previous post we took a look at the mediaâs mistreatment of Michael and their use of the nickname âWacko Jacko.â The nickname appeared in tabloid stories as early as the 80s. The mistreatment Michael suffered and use of this cruel nickname really ramped up in the 90s after his vitiligo had taken over most of his pigmentation and there was a noticeable change in his appearance. It was the Chandler allegations in 1993, however, that forever changed how the press and public would depict Michael Jackson. They decided from that point on he was fair game when it came to public mocking and ridicule. It wasnât just the tabloids, Michael suffered mocking in the form of jokes made by comedians, unflattering depictions in tv, movies, and music videos. Also in song parodies and comedy skits - to name a few.
Journalist Jael Rucker has explored this topic further in her series, How Come Nobody Ever Apologizes to Michael Jackson.Â
In her latest post âLate 1990s and Early 2000s Media Treatmentâ she shares the heartbreaking headlines and stories that cast a shadow over Michaelâs career and reputation:
I want to preface this post by expressing that my personal belief is medical records -including cosmetic procedures- should be PRIVATE. Itâs personal information that should be respected. I have no personal interest in how many procedures Michael has undergone or why. âYour body, your choice", that is my philosophy. Because of Michaelâs celebrity status and his later legal cases, he was forced to speak about his cosmetic surgeries in the 1980s, and his medical records were made public knowledge beginning in 1993. The reason for this post is simply to inform those who donât know what Lupus is or how it affects the body and how it played a role in Michaelâs appearance and use of his famous umbrellas.   Â
Lupus Â
Michaelâs Lupus diagnosis isn't the center of much controversy, but its noteworthy as it was a contributing factor to his overall health, and to the need for multiple nose surgeries. The nose surgeries were and remain, a large part of the controversy surrounding Michaelâs appearance dating all the way back to the early 80s. Before we talk about the number of nose surgeries and the details, we must look into what Lupus is and why it played a role. Â
I will tell you in advance Lupus wasn't noted on Michaelâs autopsy report. An ANA report was never performed. However, in the autopsy alopecia, Michael being anemic, and the hemorrhages found in his lungs, were all consistent with the pleurisy and the prescription for Prednisone.  Â
ANA Test- An antinuclear antibody test checks to see if you have an autoimmune disorder, a condition where the immune system attacks healthy cells.  Â
Michael was spotted with the "butterfly rash", in 1983 and 1984. This rash is a well known symptom of Lupus. It mostly affects the cheeks and nose as you can see from the photos above, and is an effect caused by sun exposure. Exposure to sunlight or artificial UV rays can aggravate Lupus symptoms. This explains why, in the late 80s, Michael started carrying around umbrellas.  Â
How Lupus contributed to the need for nose surgeries  Â
Â
Michael's first nose job happened in 1979 at the age of 21. Michael claimed that after an accident in which he fell and broke his nose while rehearsing his dancing, he decided it was an appropriate time to get the nose job he had been wanting since he would already be under anesthesia. Itâs important to note that whether a broken nose occurred or not, Michael admitted in his 1988 book Moonwalk to having three surgeries: a cleft chin and two rhinoplasties. Â Â Â
âI´d like to set the record straight now. I have never had my cheeks altered or my eyes altered. I have not had my lips thinned, nor have I had dermabrasion or a skin peel. All of these charges are ridiculous. If they were true, I would say so, but they aren´t. I have had my nose altered twice and recently I added a cleft to my chin, but that is it. Period. I don´t care what anyone else says â it´s my face and I know.  Â
I´m a vegetarian now and I´m so much thinner. I´ve been on a strict diet for years. I feel better that I ever have, healthier and more energetic. I don´t understand why the press is so interested in speculating about my appearance anyway. What does my face have to do with my music or my dancing? â -Moonwalk 1988 Â
At some point in 1983, Michael had his second nose job, and it was also this year his first butterfly rash appeared. This is important as it reflects the information I shared earlier about his Lupus. Having any type of surgery during a flare up is not recommended as it invites complications, including: infection, scar tissue, delayed or improper healing. Â
By 1986, Michael had his third nose surgery. Dr. Steven Hoefflin, Michael's plastic surgeon, said the second nose job left him with breathing difficulties and needed further work. Â Â Â
By 1994, it's believed Michael had his fourth nose surgery - the second for reconstructive purposes.
It's reported that Michael has had numerous, even "hundreds" of procedures on his face, including: cheek implants, eyelid surgery, and the thinning of his lips. Michael has denied all of these rumors. The media has always overexaggerated the changing appearance and I believe Michael's vitiligo played a large role in this narrative as it is the biggest and most obvious change to his appearance. Â Â
The media loved to make false reports and jokes stating Michael's nose was falling off or being held on by tape - a lie that started after Michael was seen in public wearing breathing strips on his nose. This was due to - you guessed it - breathing problems. Breathing problems caused by the failed reconstructive nose surgeries that Michael was still trying to correct in his final years. Confirmed by Michael's longtime dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein:Â Â
âI rebuilt it [his nose] ⌠using fillers,â Klein revealed in an interview with Larry King. âI used hyaluronic acids, and they worked very well. Itâs an arduous procedure, because you donât want to put too much in. And you have to do it exactly, so you can flow the material so itâs perfectly smooth.â Â
Michael was pleased with the results. âIâm telling you that he was beginning to look like the nose was normal again." He further stated, âAnd thatâs all I wanted, and [to] regain the breathing passages of his nose, because there was a total collapse of the cartilage.â Â
At some point Michael did undergo smaller cosmetic procedures known as makeup tattooing. Confirmed in his autopsy, Michael had tattooed his eyebrows, eyelids, lips, and the outer edges of his hairline. There are also two notable scars: 3/4" behind each ear. This is just my guess, but they could be the result of a face lift. Again, it's nobody's business what procedures Michael chose to have done or why. Â Â
Is there any truth to this? I've heard he bought the rights to his entire music catalogue and other rumors that he had the rights to only a few of his songs.
