This article was originally posted on Desiree speaks...so listen. The blog is no longer available online. Full credit goes to the original author.
This article will be archived on this site so people can read and freely make up their own minds without interference from Jackson's misinformation troll factory.
If you have yet to read Maureen Orth's 1995 Vanity Fair article "The Jackson Jive", you should get a move on then! It's a great piece.*
I was perusing Youtube the other night and, having already had my transcript of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley's 1995 Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer in hand, I wanted to re-watch the video to match the text.
Diane Sawyer was heavily criticized for what was essentially a softball interview (or an extremely expensive ad campaign for the HIStory album in exchange for a ratings boon) with Michael and his sham bride.
I can see why.
The whole show began with what was basically an ass-kissing spectacle celebrating Michael's musical genius; it had the bit of pillow chat between the three broken up by an Elizabeth Taylor testimonial and the music video for the cacophonous 'Scream'; and it ended with Michael being able to make 'bunny ears' behind Lisa Marie's head while Diane was delivering her final questions.
But, most importantly, Maureen Orth was right! Michael did lie!
The 'grilling', if one could call it that, begins at the 4:45 mark:
By the way, I found Michael's body language in the above video to be quite telling. When Diane Sawyer would ask a particularly uncomfortable question about the Jordie Chandler allegations, he would maneuver into a sort of calculated calm, being almost rigid. It was unnatural. At times he looked off, stared intensely, fluttered his eyelids, or laughed. All of these behaviors can be indicative of deceit depending on the person or the situation.
But, you know, I am no expert. I just wanted to make that clear.
Michael was adamant on one thing from the moment Diane Sawyer began her questions about the allegations: he had been slighted by law enforcement investigating the charges he had molested a pubescent boy.
MICHAEL JACKSON: The idea--it just isn't fair--what they put me through. 'Cause there wasn't one piece of information that says I did this. And anyway, they turned my room upside-down, went through all my books, all my videotapes, all my private things and they found nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing that could say Michael Jackson did this. Nothing!
DIANE SAWYER: But let me ask you a couple of questions...
MJ: To this day nothing. Still, nothing...
DS: Let me ask you...
MJ: ...nothing, nothing, nothing!
I'm assuming that despite the fact the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County law enforcements received a complaint that a child had been sexually abused, it was not a good enough reason to violate the sanctity of Michael's Neverland Ranch, even if it was 'standard procedure'.
If we are to believe Michael and his protestations of innocence, he most certainly went through a horrible ordeal: he was body searched, smeared in the media, and ultimately forced to settle. But was it that cut and dry?
Apparently not. If it had been, such accusations would not have stuck nor would he have had to settle the case.
He did not tell the truth in his interview.
DS: Nothing. We got nothing. As you may or may not know, we have called everyone we can call. We have checked everything we can check, we have gone and tried to see if what we heard before is in fact the case. I want to ask you about two things. These reports that we read over and over again, that in your room they found photographs of young boys...
MJ: Not of young boys, of children, all kinds of girls and...everything.
DS: And that they found photographs--books, of young boys who were undressed.
DS: It didn't happen?
MJ: No, not that I know of--unless people sent me things that I haven't opened. People send, people know my love for children, so they send me books from all over the world. From South America, from Germany, from Sweden, from Italy...
DS: So people say that, that they found these things, that there's an indication...let them come forward...Let them produce them, right?
MJ: Yeah. Because I get all--I get all kinds--you wouldn't believe the amounts of mail that I get. If you say to somebody, you know, if I let the fans know that I love Charlie Chaplin, I'll be swarmed in Charlie Chaplin paraphernalia.
DS: What about...
MJ: ...If I say I love children, which I do, they swarm me with everything pertaining to kids!
Michael's assertion that he did not have books of young children is not entirely true. Of course, he left himself an 'out' by saying if, in the event that evidence of said books were produced, they would have been given to him by fans.
Well, that's a little too convenient an argument from someone who was so emphatic that they did not possess such books, although I am sure there are many fans who'd be willing to take the fall for Michael.
On the stand in Michael's 2005 trial for the alleged molestation of Gavin Arvizo, Detective Rosibel Ferrufino-Smith, an investigator during the raid on Neverland in 1993, testified to the curious location of these so-called 'art books' of naked boys, labeled exhibits #841 and #842:
20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three
21 objects at this time. Exhibits No. 841 and 842;
22 would you take a look at those two objects, please?
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. Do you recognize those two books?
25 A. Yes, I do.
26 Q. Did you seize those two books?
27 A. Yes, I did.
28 Q. From where?
1 A. These books were seized from a cabinet
2 within Michael Jackson’s closet in the master
The two books--Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy--were found in Michael's bedroom. They were not on a shelf in a 'vast library' or even in a storage-style box! They were in his bedroom closet! Ferrufino-Smith continues in her testimony:
10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Tell us where in
11 his bedroom this particular closet is.
12 A. It was off to the side of the main bedroom.
13 There were -- actually, there were two closets on
14 either side of the room, and this would have been
15 the side where the Jacuzzi was located.
16 Q. Now, this is the first floor of his bedroom
17 suite; is that right?
18 A. That’s correct.
19 Q. Was there a bed in that bedroom suite?
20 A. Yes.
Both books were nestled safely in a bedroom closet, the first floor in which Michael slept. The evidence is mounting against his feigned ignorance as to his possession of the books. He had them and they were in very close proximity to where he slept. She continues in what will shatter Michael's lie:
2 Q BY MR. ZONEN. All right. And is that file cabinet
3 depicted in that photograph?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. How many drawers in that file cabinet?
6 A. Four.
7 Q. In which drawer were those two books seized,
8 from which drawer?
9 A. From the third drawer.
10 Q. Was that file cabinet locked?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?
13 A. We were able to get the key from -- the maid
14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to
15 unlock it at that time.
Not only were the books found in his bedroom on the floor where he slept, they were also found in a locked file cabinet! One could make the argument that Michael was trying to hide these particular books which contained photographs of naked boys, some photos explicitly showing the children's genitals.
It is also worth noting that Michael had had The Boy since 1983 and Boys Will Be Boys since, at the earliest, 1988, inscribing these words in the latter:
"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ."
So much for books Michael knew nothing about, or, rather, books amid 'tons of mail' he received from fans! I doubt one would hold 'unknown' books for ten years and five years, respectively; write in one of them; and then hide them in the bottom drawers of a locked file cabinet in a bedroom closet. All of that reeks of deliberate concealment!
It has also been said that one of these particular books allegedly appeared to have never been opened. Seeing that Michael inscribed one of them but kept them together, it is wholly unlikely that one of the books were 'neglected'. Besides, some people keep their books in near-mint condition in spite of usage.
So, he lied.
DS: Any other settlements in process now or previously with children making these kinds of claims? We have heard that there is one...not, not a case that the prosecutors would bring in court...
DS: ...but, but once again you're talking about settling out...
MJ: No. That's not true. No. It's not true. I think, I've heard everything is fine, and there are no others.
This was also not true.
The boy in question was Jason Francia, son of Michael's very credible maid Blanca Francia. For the accusations of Michael having tickled and touched his testicles on several different occasions at both Michael's Century City 'Hideout' apartment and Neverland, Jason was eventually paid upwards of $2 million sometime after the interview. Clearly, Michael was in some sort of negotiations in 1995 when he appeared on Primetime Live.
I should note that Lisa Marie stared intently at Diane Sawyer when she posed that question, her brow furrowing; she obviously had heard nothing about her sham husband's legal issues.
DS: How about the police photographs though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?
MJ: The police photographs?
DS: The police photographs.
MJ: That they took of me?
MJ: There was nothing that matched me to those charges. There was nothing.
LISA MARIE PRESLEY : There was nothing they could connect to him.
MJ: That's why I'm sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that they found, that could connect me...
DS: So when we heard the charges...
MJ: There was nothing...
DS: ...markings of some kind?
MJ: No markings.
DS: No markings?
The above is only partly true.
Jordie Chandler provided a detailed description of Michael's private parts to his lawyers and police. However, his claim of Michael Jackson being circumcised turned out to be incorrect, as Michael's autopsy report later proved. Although Jordie was wrong in the area of circumcision, that was basically the extent as to what was different.
The details that did match Jordie's description were things the boy could not have seen in any other capacity outside some form of sexual impropriety on Michael's part, such as his patchy testicles: brown and pink, not brown and white.
In Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover, Gutierrez provides the reader with a photocopied reproduction of the hand-drawn sketch and description Jordie made for his lawyers at the time.
Jordie's description of the 'cow-like' appearance of Michael's testicles is indicative of something that couldn't have been made up! Brown and pink is a very unique and distinguishing attribute, especially given that the testicles of someone without skin pigment would most likely appear pinkish due to the abundance of blood vessels and capillaries in that region.
Jordie's description makes it reasonable for one to assume he actually saw Michael's testicles.
Also, Michael's own conduct while undergoing the body search belies an innocent man. He was said to have physically attacked his own doctors who tried to restrain him; he verbally attacked the photography and investigative team; and he stormed out of the room before the police photographer had finished taking all of the necessary pictures. (For discussion of this, check out Diane Dimond's book Be Careful Who You Love from your local library, if available, pages 8-16, 141-143.)
Moreover, Michael claimed there had been no markings. There are conflicting reports as to whether said 'splotch' was light in color or dark in color. Michael's camp has alleged the opposite as to what was found, of course, although one could reasonably argue that what Jordie thought was distinctive was different from what the authorities thought was distinctive.
You know, sort of like those pictures in which they ask you, "What do you see: a pair of faces in profile or a goblet?" I'm just saying. It's possible.
However, what should be noted is that Jordie was able to lead the investigators to where this 'splotch' was located: just underneath the penis, only visible during arousal!
I am of the opinion that if one was to extort someone, as Evan Chandler allegedly did, one would not claim to be so familiar with an intimate appendage as to describe it if it were never shown or seen by them. They would only claim possession of information they were certain would bring about a payday. Anything else would be too risky!
During Michael's 2005 trial, the prosecution tried to introduce the pictures of Michael's genitals as evidence on May 26th 2005. They were denied by Judge Rodney Melville but their reasoning was not to shock the jury; they simply wanted to show that the photos matched reasonably enough to prove Michael had had some sort of sexual contact with a minor:
27 MR. ZONEN: Your Honor, I think we’ve
28 adequately stated our position in the pleadings. I
1 can tell you that with regard to the relevance of
2 that material, there was quite a bit of testimony
3 that was presented during the course of the defense
4 case about nothing untoward or inappropriate
5 occurring in Michael Jackson’s bedroom and numerous
6 witnesses who have testified to the fact that many
7 children, particularly back in the 1993, ‘94, ‘92
8 period, who spent not just nights, but weeks and
9 even months in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, in Michael
10 Jackson’s bed, and it was a completely nonsexual
12 The fact that this child was able to give a
13 description of a unique feature of his anatomy that
14 could not have been known by him except for a very
15 intimate acquaintance with Mr. Jackson is very good
16 circumstantial evidence of the fact that the
17 relationship between he and at least that child was
18 something more than casual and something more than
Lastly, it should be reiterated that Michael was only telling a half-truth in his interview. Jordie's descriptions fell short in that Michael was not circumcised but nearly everything else matched; additionally, Jordie described features that could only have been seen while Michael was in a state of arousal or during sexual activity. His inability to accurately cite a circumcision is really moot in the grand picture: he knew exactly where a 'dark splotch' was located; he knew the testicles were patchy; he knew Michael had short pubic hair!
Michael escaped an arrest because of that tiny inconsistency surrounding the circumcision and nothing more. As per Jordie's description, it's reasonable to assert that he'd only seen the penis when it looked circumcised!**
Michael lied in that he knew the boy had seen his penis but feigned innocence since he eluded capture!
But that is the way of superstardom, wealth, and hubris...
In the vein of hubris (or is it compulsion?), Michael Jackson made it very clear he would not stop his sleepovers, the very 'sleepovers' that sexual activity between himself and young boys allegedly occurs:
DS: I just want to--is it over? Are you gonna make sure it doesn't happen again? I think, this is really the key thing people want to know.
MJ: Is what over?
DS: That--that there are not going to be more of these sleepovers in which people have to wonder.
MJ: Nobody wonders when kids sleep over at my house. Nobody wonders.
DS: But are they over? Are you--are you going to watch out for it now?
MJ: Watch out for what?
DS: For the sake of the children, and for--everything you've been through.
MJ: No, 'cause it's all--it's all moral and it's all pure. I don't even think that way. It's not what's in my heart.
DS: So you'll--you'll do it again?
MJ: I would never ever... Do what again?
DS: I mean you'll have a child sleeping over.
MJ: Of course! If they want.
'If they want...' And that is all Michael had to say, really. He knows that since he was a celebrity, the possibility of countless children who venture into Neverland would have wanted to spend time in Michael Jackson's bedroom.
After all, he did make Thriller, he can 'moonwalk', and he had Bubbles the Chimp.
Michael was defiant in his stance: he would not give up his vice; he needed to sleep in the bed with young boys. According to the FBI guide Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis by Kenneth V. Lanning, a thirty-year veteran in the FBI, Michael's 'sleepovers' would be considered ritualistic and compulsory to the molestation process (page 23/160 of the .pdf document):
The concept of an MO ("method of operation")--something done by an offender because it works and will help him get away with the crime--is well known to most investigators. MO usually involves patterns of behavior intended to ensure success, protect identity, and facilitate escape. An MO is fueled by thought and deliberation. Most offenders change and improve their MO over time and with experience.
Through use of these sleepovers, Michael could gain access to the young boys, lower their inhibitions and molest them or fondle them while they slept, all the while remaining under the banner of 'innocent fun'. His unwillingness to give up the sleepovers reeks of need.
No one understood that need but Michael and anyone who questioned it was seen as obstinate, cynical, and unsympathetic to the lost youth of a child star.
He thought Diane Sawyer's question about why would a thirty-something-year-old man sleep in the bed with a twelve-year-old boy was 'ridiculous', even laughing a bit to diffuse his own nervousness surrounding the query:
DS ...What is a thirty-six year old man doing, sleeping, with a twelve year old boy? Or a series of them?
MJ: Right. Okay, when you say "boys", it's not just boys and I've never invited just "boys" to come in my room. C'mon that's just ridiculous. And that's a ridiculous question. But since people want to hear it, you know, the answer... I'll be happy to answer it. I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But... anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.
By the way, Michael contradicts himself by saying it's not 'just boys' he sleeps with in order to make it seem as if he is egalitarian with both sexes of children yet he says he never invited anyone into his bed. Well, which is it: all or nothing?
So, what do we have at the end of it all, besides an orchestrated advertisement for the HIStory album and a post-molestation career booster masquerading as an in-depth interview? Oh, yes: lies.
Money very well spent by Sony Music to save their most valuable commodity...
*Maureen Orth's article is a must-read regarding Michael's Primetime Live interview. Also a must-read is this piece here, which brilliantly discusses the interview as well as Evan Chandler's lawsuit against ABC and against Michael Jackson for violating the settlement agreement.
**With regards to the circumcision, let's be real: the penile foreskin, when still attached, looks different depending on the man; some are thinner and less noticeable and some are thickened and obvious. In fact, the investigators and doctors on site when the body search occurred had to double check to make sure if 'uncircumcision' was the right call! When an erection occurs, uncircumcised looks very similar to circumcised (explicit link but I think it's worth looking at in terms of understanding Jordie's mistake). Jordie most likely only saw the damned thing when Michael was erect and wanted to enter into some sort of sexual activity, Michael having already been aroused before he removed his own clothes. It is also possible he did not look directly at Michael's appendage during the molestations, only working by feel.