Rebuttals to my 'Michael Jackson was gay' findings? - Charles Thomson

Learn the truth about Michael Jackson's unhealthy interest in young boys.

Go to content

Rebuttals to my 'Michael Jackson was gay' findings?

This article was originally posted on Desiree 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.
I am still on a vacation-of-sorts but I did want to do a brief update from the "Desiree listen..." Head Quarters.

I never intended I'd owe my Jacko-related fifteen minutes of fame to two tediously researched posts debunking the myth of Michael Jackson's alleged heterosexuality; I had hoped it would be for proving--of course, not beyond a reasonable doubt but definitely surpassing reasonable suspicion--Michael Jackson had had dubious relationships with pubescent boys.

Those entries will come later.

But the Michael Jackson Internet subculture seemed to be abuzz regarding these two entries (well, unfortunately, just the first one, although the second is far better) because Michael cannot be a homosexual. Even though I had given him the benefit of the doubt regarding these semen stains found on his mattress and in underwear and bed sheets (the latter apparently taken away from a hotel stay), suggesting they could have been from legal and consensual gay sexual contact, it is still  as bad as saying Michael was a pedophile.

I should reiterate, though: I am not entirely convinced the semen stains were not from Michael Jackson's boy-loving escapades.

Due to my revealing of these bodily fluid drenched belongings of Michael's and suggesting that, in conjunction with all other factors as outlined in my Addendum to the original gay post, these semen-stained items were a strong suggestion--even explosive proof--of Michael Jackson's penchant for males, a fan-oriented 'vindication' website, Vindicate MJ, has made a few posts allegedly 'debunking' these shocking revelations thrust onto the Internet stage in November of last year by Yours Truly.

My suggestion to you, dear readers, is to read these articles and make up your own mind:

I believe they are coming up with another post that will explore these details further, or, as they say 'once and for all!' I will link that one as soon as it is put up, so there will be a free flow of information.

Have I read them, you ask?

I have indeed read both entries, as well as the comments, which was the true delice, as they feature me and I can be somewhat of a narcissist.

And what do I think of them?

This thought had occurred to me: Desiree, shall you write another verbose and tedious explanation dissecting some fan's meandering screeds, written only in an effort to get the Michael Jackson ball back into the Court of the Deluded?

I decided to leave it alone. For now, at least, lest something needs to be amended.

But I will say this, and it is one of life's important aphorisms: "The 'most likely' things are most likely."

What does this mean?

Once you have read the articles linked to that piss-poor, quasi-literate vindication website, the aphorism will make sense.

When I found and then read the "14 Items" motion, I could feel the Defense's panic leap off the page. Here was a group of high-paid attorneys representing one of the world's strangest, most secretive, and enigmatic celebrities, one whose whole career had been dogged by rumor and innuendo since it's start. When the Prosecution's forensics returned and so-called foreign 'male DNA'--which is semen--had been found on Michael Jackson's bed mattress and in underwear and bed sheets kept with his own soiled underwear, they knew they had but one important thing to do for Michael Jackson: bury it!

Evidence of Michael Jackson engaging in homosexual activity would not serve him well in front of a jury whose job was to ascertain whether he could have once again sexually abused an adolescent boy, not to mention it would have blew the entire facade of heterosexuality he'd tried to maintain throughout his career.

Michael Jackson's attorneys were successful, and rightly so: while I am convinced those semen stains were evidence of his sexual abuse of the myriad young boys that filtered in and out of Neverland Ranch, if, in fact, they were evidence of consensual sex between he and a male lover, or two, they had no business in the courtroom.

The charges at hand were Michael Jackson masturbating a young boy, not a consenting adult.

As you read the linked articles on Vindicate MJ, as well as the comments, please keep in mind the evidence to which I originally presented to the world, as it gets muddled over there:
  • 'Male DNA' is not saliva, hair, skin flakes, mucus, wine, ketchup, shampoo, or shit; it is semen. The Defense's use of the term 'male DNA', as well as its popularity with fans in denial, does not change what the evidence was: semen, as the Prosecution repeatedly noted in their motion-in-response.
  • The Prosecution did not merely determine the semen stains on Michael's mattress with an ultraviolet light (and could possibly mistake the stains with saliva), but the samples were removed from the mattress and tested in a forensic facility in which DNA was extracted from stains determined to be semen.
  • As per the documents available, there was no mention of any other pertinent bodily fluids found on the tested articles outside of the bloodstains on Michael's underwear.
  • The Defense never challenged the evidence of semen on the bed mattress, in the underwear, and in the bed sheets; the Prosecution even offered to provide samples to the Jackson team in order for that side to conduct its own forensic analysis, but they refused, never disputing the findings!

As the picture of the Prosecution's response shows, the Jackson team never denied the factuality of the evidence of semen stains in Michael's bed mattress (although not listed, it was in the Defense's "14 Items" motion underneath the umbrella term of "DNA of anyone other than Mr. Jackson" along with the other semen evidence) or in these underwear or bed sheets; they only challenged the evidence in terms of relevance.

That is an important point to remember before venturing over to fan territory, where all evidence is skewed in order to be defended or outright denied to exist.

As I noted in my meticulously-researched and expansive Addendum to the original explosive piece, the items listed in the Defense's proactive "14 Items" motion represented aspects of Michael Jackson's life that, if explored or even mentioned in passing, would prove embarrassing and inflammatory while he was on trial for an embarrassing and inflammatory crime.

His attorneys cited California Evidence Code Section 352, which states,
The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.
The citation of the statute makes perfect sense as to why none of these were ever mentioned in court. Evidence of gay sex--semen stains from unknown males--would be prejudicial, cause confusion, and mislead the average American citizen chosen to sit in the Jury Box. It would also 'unduly consume' time explaining that these 'relevant' articles had nothing to do with the Prosecution's case-in-chief.

Once again, as I will repeat: this evidence was left out because it was irrelevant.

My goal when I wrote the first post was to simply illuminate that there possibly was hard proof of Michael Jackson having been a gay man, as there had been tell-tale semen stains on his bed mattress and semen stains found on bed sheets and underwear kept with his own soiled underwear.

The operative word is 'simply'.

This is a virtue left unacknowledged over at Vindicate MJ, or any other forum wherein my articles and findings are discussed. Because the negative side of rabid fanaticism is sometimes extreme denial, you will read the screeds of a fan (and their readers) desperately trying to explain away the obvious power of these semen stains found on the bed mattress and in hotel bags of a sexually-ambiguous, twice-accused of pedophilia megastar.

I can honestly admit there could be alternate explanations for how these seminal discharges melted into Michael Jackson's bed, ones that go outside of Michael Jackson having had homosexual sexual contact. However, as I made clear in the Addendum to the original post, the simplest explanation that does not have to be predicated upon other variables (which also have a probability of their own) is the most logical explanation.

At Vindicate MJ, you will read of my logic being slammed and read their alternate explanations as to how the semen stains could have gotten onto Michael's bed and in sheets and underwear he seemed to want to preserve over wash.

Sure, they can acknowledge semen on his bed, but he had nothing to do with it; there could also be semen in these bed sheets and underwear, but it was either planted or did not belong to him, seeing that other people lived in the video arcade/library area, despite that these were Michael and his children's belongings in hotel bags.

Dear readers, you will read of explanations regarding how the 'male DNA' on Michael Jackson's bed mattress was never semen, but saliva, perhaps even from Prince and Blanket Jackson! It's a stretch but most things are when Michael Jackson's fans argue his alleged innocence. Again, there was never any mention of saliva being found on the bed mattress. That is factually inaccurate.

On December 4, 2004, Brian Oxman, who, at the time, was still part of the Jackson defense team, spoke to the New York Post regarding the three foreign 'male DNAs':
Oxman said investigators had found traces of DNA from three males other than Jackson in the star's Neverland bedroom - but none from his accuser.

Asked to explain the DNA that was found, Oxman said: "Kids crash where they crash. They play in his room, and that's where they crash."
It should be noted that this sound bite curiously followed the December 3, 2004 raid of Neverland, which sought to not only obtain a swab from Michael Jackson to officially confirm he was the owner of the bloodstained underwear found with the semen-soiled underwear worn by another male, but also to check security systems and measure building layouts.

Oxman's statement to the press was another proactive measure, carefully calculated just in case the actual compositions of these so-called 'male DNAs' leaked to the press in a similar fashion as the Grand Jury transcripts.

However, he did not give an accurate, or even true, summation of how the stains got onto the bed or what they were, as he suggested these 'male DNAs' were saliva!

As you noticed, the 'male DNA' to which Oxman refers was not as 'innocent'--if boys sleeping in the bedroom of an accused gay pedophile with a treasure trove of explicit materials can be innocent--as he described, unless these boys 'crashing' in Michael Jackson's bedroom expelled semen upon falling asleep. The Prosecution later tried to get him held in contempt of court for providing "exculpatory commentary" about evidence already misrepresented by the press.

In other words, Oxman had attempted to put a 'positive spin' on the semen stain evidence by claiming that it was saliva. All of which was untrue and inaccurate.

One thing that should be noted is that many of his fans, as you will read at Vindicate MJ, believe, yes, Michael Jackson was having boys sleep in his bedroom but Michael slept on the floor, offering his bed to his male slumber mates. This is improbable because Michael Jackson has repeatedly stated over the years that there is nothing wrong with 'sharing a love' and sleeping in the bed with unrelated boys. The likelihood of him sleeping on the floor--even after being accused of child molestation, as he explained here--when he 'considers' this seemingly mundane act 'innocent' is slim-to-none.

From Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson:
Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was a great privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life - when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"

Jackson: "Yes."

Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"

Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."

Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"

Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."

Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"

Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack the Ripper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'm in a sleeping bag on the floor. I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag."

Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"

Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children."
So, if a pubescent boy slept in Michael's bedroom and, fantastically, was one of the depositors of the semen stains on his bed, Michael would be under the covers with this child! Fans who deny Michael Jackson's obvious enjoyment and ritualistic need to sleep in the same bed--not bedroom, but bed--with young boys are subconsciously acknowledging the impropriety of such a bizarre insistence!

It is inappropriate, regardless of how much one enjoys Thriller and his moonwalking, for a grown man to sleep in the same bed as an unrelated young boy.

I continue to be amazed at the level and recalcitrance of denial from Michael Jackson's fans.

This issue of the semen stains in conjunction with the breadth of circumstantial evidence of Michael Jackson not being interested in the opposite sex should have been simple. And, owing to the increased traffic I got over that November post, it was simple and explosive. Fangirls around the Net were angry that their fantasy Michael Jackson in his allegedly provocative golden pants had left evidence on his bed mattress and in bed sheets and underwear kept with his own dirty underwear of his penchant for males, and I had exposed it.

Now, I am willing to be wrong on any of my findings and I am intelligent enough to bow to people whose arguments are more factual and logical than my own. That is something that my detractors--who, ironically, call me crazy--do not understand; my life is not held together by my Michael Jackson blog entries and analysis. I do other things with my time. For some reason, these people believe I am paid to write 'trash' about Michael or that I have nothing better to do.

All of the above is incorrect. Of course, I enjoy being right and I defend my pieces to the death, not to mention that I will promote them, as would any writer. But it is inaccurate for anyone to read my blog and say that I lie about who I am and what I am doing with regard to the deceased King of Pop.

I have my '100 Things About Me' page where you can see two photos of me and get to know me in whatever capacity one hundred quick bullets will allow. As you'll notice, none of my detractors have ever shown their faces; they then have the nerve to call me insane or a nutcase or anything else along that tangent because they disagree with my viewpoints. (This is while they idol-worship a dead, allegedly child-molesting, obviously pedophilic drug addict.)

All of that behavior is the essence of immaturity and faulty reasoning faculties. I have learned all ready that most people who resort to personal attacks tend to have low intelligence quotients. I do not.

With all of that said, I feel strongly that I am not wrong on this gay bit, especially since the Defense never challenged the factuality of the semen stains, only their relevance to the Prosecution's case.

If that is not a glowing (albeit implied) endorsement to the accuracy of these semen-soiled belongings, I do not know what is! The Defense decided--once again, proactively--that these items needed to be kept out. If they were innocent and representative of maybe his children (if they were ever saliva, which they were not) or a family member, the Defense would not have fought so hard to preclude them as evidence.

Dear readers, when you venture thusly, into the logically-warped jungles of the fan website responsible for these posts I've linked above, please keep in mind that spin is never a substitution for arguments based upon sound evidence.

Complexity is not as virtuous as simplicity; it's overrated. The more implausible an argument sounds, the more likely it is implausible.

At the end of the day, you all have unrestricted access to the files I've linked time and time again on this blog. You don't need me or any of my analysis if you can read words in those black-and-white court documents...

~ Desiree P.I.
© Facts Don't Lie. Pedophiles Do.
© Facts Don't Lie. Pedophiles Do.
Back to content