Latest on MJJC

Aphrodite Jones on E! True Hollywood story

Crisstti said:
Can anyone say what she said?.

And yes, in any case we should remember that they could have been manipulating what she said... And that she might not know that much about it...

In any case, I don't think there's anything she could have said that would make her deserving of being put in the same level of Diane Diamond... have people not read Aphrodite's blog or website about her book?, she is clearly such a fan of Michael...

What bothers me is people like AL Sharpton or Jessie Jackson (which one was it???) that went to defend Joe when he wal being criticized about promoting his label after Michael died... And Katherine saying that the Joe didn't do what they say he did... thus pretty much calling Michael (and some of his brothers/sisters) a liar.
Click to expand...

The reason why mom defends dad, because it says a lot about her. Many women will defend the husbands in incest, child beatings and many other things. That is nothing new so when she defends Joe it means nothing to me.
 
Crisstti said:
That is what is actually important. The fact that the settlement didn't mean the Chandlers couldn't have gone on with the criminal case. That is what I said to someone who was asking my "if he didn't do anything, then why did he pay the settlement?", and that person didn't go on arguing after that...

Because the issue of what parents in their right mind would accept money instead of justice... doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't prove anything, because the parent could simply NOT be in their right mind, they could just care about money and not their child.

But the act is they were NOT accepting money INSTEAD of justice, because there was nothing stopping them from pursuing the criminal case.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I think i'm gonna use that one whenever any sucker tries to talk bad about Michael regarding those allegations, of course you'll always have
idiots who simply ignore this and call you a MJ stan and obsessed and what not.

I also have to say it's a huge huge FAIL!!!!!!!!!! Of Jesse Jackson, Frank Dileo and the Al Sharpton to be on a photo with the pathetic excuse for a human being called Ian needs-helperin. How
did these guys not ask 'So, who were you again?' before smiling and shit on a photo...come on now!
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Exactly. I think i'm gonna use that one whenever any sucker tries to talk bad about Michael regarding those allegations, of course you'll always have
idiots who simply ignore this and call you a MJ stan and obsessed and what not.

I also have to say it's a huge huge FAIL!!!!!!!!!! Of Jesse Jackson, Frank Dileo and the Al Sharpton to be on a photo with the pathetic excuse for a human being called Ian needs-helperin. How
did these guys not ask 'So, who were you again?' before smiling and shit on a photo...come on now!
Click to expand...

Well, he would just have said he was writing a book on Michael...

Frankly, if all that Ian Halperin says in his book is that Michael was gay... what is the big deal?. I know he doesn't present any "evidence" nor anything, but still, it's not like his saying something bad about him...
Though a review of his book on Amazon says that he called Michael a child molester and many other things in his blog before... is that really the problem?.

Anyway, what I do find strange is how did he get into the memorial at all... wouldn't he have needed an invitation?.
 
ensleyave said:
The reason why mom defends dad, because it says a lot about her. Many women will defend the husbands in incest, child beatings and many other things. That is nothing new so when she defends Joe it means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

It does say a lot about her, that is why it means a lot that she said Jow didn't abuse their children...

I don't like talking badly about her because Michael loved her a lot... but really, how could she allow her husband to do that to her children?. What does that say about her?. And that even now she will defend him... It makes me doubt whether it was a good idea on Michael's part to leave the children with her.
 
It has to do with they way women were raised at during that time. You make the marriage work no matter what. Hold the family together no matter what and a lot a women do the same thing she did to this day. That is why I believe MJ called her a saint somewhat of a martyr. She was put through hell in his eyes but her hell became their hell sometimes we don't recognize that as women.
 
ensleyave said:
It has to do with they way women were raised at during that time. You make the marriage work no matter what. Hold the family together no matter what and a lot a women do the same thing she did to this day. That is why I believe MJ called her a saint somewhat of a martyr. She was put through hell in his eyes but her hell became their hell sometimes we don't recognize that as women.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the issue of the way women were raised and all... if not for taht I'd say she should have been in prison. I uderstand she was in a difficult position. Still doesn't seem acceptable to me (I mean, I think I'd kill someone if they'd do to my children what Joe did to hers...). Especially her defending Joe even now (and impyling Michael was lying...). And she did separate (if that's how it's said in English) from him because he had a child with another woman... (maybe his treatment of their children wsa involved in that decision as well, who knows...)
 
Crisstti said:
Well, he would just have said he was writing a book on Michael...

Frankly, if all that Ian Halperin says in his book is that Michael was gay... what is the big deal?. I know he doesn't present any "evidence" nor anything, but still, it's not like his saying something bad about him...
Though a review of his book on Amazon says that he called Michael a child molester and many other things in his blog before... is that really the problem?.

Anyway, what I do find strange is how did he get into the memorial at all... wouldn't he have needed an invitation?.
Click to expand...


He said
1. Michael was gay and a cross dresser
2. Michael had skin cancer
3. Was blind in one eye, almost deaf, and needed a liver transplant
4. The book was originally titled "Peter Pan or Pervert"
 
Crisstti said:
Yes, I understand the issue of the way women were raised and all... if not for taht I'd say she should have been in prison. I uderstand she was in a difficult position. Still doesn't seem acceptable to me (I mean, I think I'd kill someone if they'd do to my children what Joe did to hers...). Especially her defending Joe even now (and impyling Michael was lying...). And she did separate (if that's how it's said in English) from him because he had a child with another woman... (maybe his treatment of their children wsa involved in that decision as well, who knows...)
Click to expand...


No it doesn't make it right at all. I was giving my opinion on why she would stay. It does upset me sometimes because when she denies it; she is calling Michael a liar.
 
...............
 
Last edited:
I read the Conspiracy book by Aphrodite Jones. It was very good and she made it a point to tell the real truth about how the media and DA were out to destroy Michael. I found her to be very sincere and open about her feelings on how Michael was treated and she included herself in that statement. She took accountability which is what this book was about. That's more then I can say for those "so-called" reporters such as Diamond and Bashir. I can't even stand to see their faces. :cry: I turn the channel or as someone said "ignore" them. Now even with that little boy and balloon story, she is really trying to sensationalize the story. Regardless if I agree with what he did or not, you can blatantly see how she manipulates the story to show that what she is saying is so very important...NOT. I despise her and Bashir. That is a strong word and I don't have these feelings for many people, but them I do because of what they did to Michael. Aphrodite does a good job in her book and after reading it, you get some sense of relief that someone with the power to communicate publicly stood up for Michael. He is innocent. The book is a must read. Also for what you saw on that show; I'm sure her words were taken out of context; what else is new? I'm sure most of what she said is laying in scraps on the editing room floor because they weren't sensational enough. Someone is right, we need to find a way to discredit these two and others just like them. It's not fair what they did and the fact that they can still exist in the public eye and make loads of money just eludes me. :angry: I don't get it! We need to fight for Michael and carry on with his mission to "heal the world". Peace and love. :angel:

"though we're far apart, you're always in my heart". :dancin:
 
PrincessMichaela said:
Wonderful wonderful post! Thank you, nice job.
Click to expand...
Thank you. :) I really do think the difference between truly loving someone, and "loving" someone in a way which is something closer to resembling hero worship, is definitely maturity.

I'll also add that although the snippets of Jones commenting on the abuse definitely raised a few red flags, we need to remember that this is still a tabloid show. Who knows if it was taken out of context or what the point was of stating that. She also may not be knowledgeable on the extent of Joe's abuse. She's an expert on the court cases, but she may not be an expert on MJ's past, prior to '93. I dunno.
Click to expand...
True. She might not have known about the ironing cords, or Michael being pushed down, and stuff like that.
 
Crisstti said:
Yes, I understand the issue of the way women were raised and all... if not for taht I'd say she should have been in prison. I uderstand she was in a difficult position. Still doesn't seem acceptable to me (I mean, I think I'd kill someone if they'd do to my children what Joe did to hers...). Especially her defending Joe even now (and impyling Michael was lying...). And she did separate (if that's how it's said in English) from him because he had a child with another woman... (maybe his treatment of their children wsa involved in that decision as well, who knows...)
Click to expand...
Women most certainly were not raised to let their husbands beat their kids to a pulp, and any implication of such is ignorant. Women stopped putting up with that and leaving their husbands for such actions as early as the 40's.

It bothers me too that Katherine was not more instrumental in stopping the beatings, but I can't get into her head, so who knows what her rationale was? I couldn't of put up with seeing anyone hurt my kids. It would've killed me!
 
I saw all the Negatives, The wannabes and Two Positive people. and Miss Jones did do her best to destroy all the rumors. Diamond and Harper are still eating crow along with Unruly Shumuely still lurking around to bringout more tapes and telling how he knows Michael to sell more books believe it or not. But there will be more Media show coverage to come. with Some folks stating Michael is everything under the sun and some positive folks saying great things about him. I'll go with the positive stuff anytime.
 
LauraLovesMJ said:
Women most certainly were not raised to let their husbands beat their kids to a pulp, and any implication of such is ignorant. Women stopped putting up with that and leaving their husbands for such actions as early as the 40's.

It bothers me too that Katherine was not more instrumental in stopping the beatings, but I can't get into her head, so who knows what her rationale was? I couldn't of put up with seeing anyone hurt my kids. It would've killed me!
Click to expand...
I said back then they were raised to stay in the marriage no matter what. I see it today. It is mostly validated by religion and church. That is not an ignorant statement. Religion has a strong hold on individuals. I am not saying that it is good or bad, because it boils down to interpretation. I have Aphrodite Jone's book it is a good read.
 
ensleyave said:
I said back then they were raised to stay in the marriage no matter what. I see it today. It is mostly validated by religion and church. That is not an ignorant statement. Religion has a strong hold on individuals. I am not saying that it is good or bad, because it boils down to interpretation. I have Aphrodite Jone's book it is a good read.
Click to expand...
No doubt religion and church had a great deal to do with it, so we agree on that.

I have AJ's book too and love it. I wish there were 10 more like it out there. Geraldine Hughes' book "Redemption" isn't very good though. Nothing new if you've read "Conspiracy".
 
LauraLovesMJ said:
No doubt religion and church had a great deal to do with it, so we agree on that.

I have AJ's book too and love it. I wish there were 10 more like it out there. Geraldine Hughes' book "Redemption" isn't very good though. Nothing new if you've read "Conspiracy".
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up about "Redemption" I was going to buy it.
 
I watched the show today and I can honestly say that there were only a few people who tried to tell the truth. As far as the rest of the people, we'll I can't say it here on this blog. I will say that I feel that Aphrodite Jones tried to tell the truth; however because of the type of show that it was, some of her comments were taken out of context. Again, if you read her book, you'll see that she tried to redeem herself by revealing the truth on what happened with the 2005 trial. Another person who appeared to try to tell the truth was J. Randy Taraborelli. I'm reading his book as well and alot of his information is researched and also from interviews from various people including Michael. Randy has known Michael since they were very young. In his book he really tries to present the facts and not sensational type information. There were one or two comments where I cringed a bit, but overall he was pretty fair. There was one or two other guys who tried to do the same. I can't remember their names. I have to watch it again. Everyone else is only jumping on the "oh we miss Michael" bandwagon. I think we just need to take these type of shows with a grain of salt. The truth will come out. We, the fans are helping to make that happen by talking on these blogs. I log onto about 3 or 4 and everyone is saying the same thing. We need to fight for Michael and carry on with his mission. That is the important thing here, nothing else.

"though we're far apart, you're always in my heart..." :angel:
 
mj_brainiac said:
He said
1. Michael was gay and a cross dresser
2. Michael had skin cancer
3. Was blind in one eye, almost deaf, and needed a liver transplant
4. The book was originally titled "Peter Pan or Pervert"
Click to expand...

Yeah... His whole story began with his sickening, fantasy-driven claim that "Michael Jackson has his Butthole Cleaned Every Afternoon by Two Men." As for the gay cross-dressing claims, the only "proof" Ian ever posted (before silently removing it after being confronted by the facts) was the confirmed false photo of a woman in France walking a dog down some isolated road, which the tabloids circulated several years ago and which the original source retracted.

Ian couldn't even get the basic FACTS right in his book... I only skimmed through it but he claimed that the entire concert series at the O2, with the exception of the very first day, was delayed 6-8 months and moved to 2010--of course the entire concert was simply shifted five days from the start, not delayed for six months!
 
TSCM said:
Yeah... His whole story began with his sickening, fantasy-driven claim that "Michael Jackson has his Butthole Cleaned Every Afternoon by Two Men." As for the gay cross-dressing claims, the only "proof" Ian ever posted (before silently removing it after being confronted by the facts) was the confirmed false photo of a woman in France walking a dog down some isolated road, which the tabloids circulated several years ago and which the original source retracted.

Ian couldn't even get the basic FACTS right in his book... I only skimmed through it but he claimed that the entire concert series at the O2, with the exception of the very first day, was delayed 6-8 months and moved to 2010--of course the entire concert was simply shifted five days from the start, not delayed for six months!
Click to expand...
Halperin pulls this stuff out of his ass. During the E Investigation show he said that Klein "introduced" Michael to Debbie Rowe, thinking that she would make a suitable mother for Michael's children. Totally wrong! Debbie had known Michael for years by that time!

I wouldn't believe a thing that came out of Stacy Brown or Leonard Rowe's mouths either.
 
Just to clear one thing: Halperin dedicates 150 pages of his book defending Michael against the molestation accusations. He also calls Michael a humanitarian. He adds that, at first, he thought Michael was a pedophile but, after doing some research, Ian reached one conclusion: Michael was absolutely innocent. He was going to name his book "Peter Pan or Pervert" before doing research, in 2004. You all should read the book.
 
If you want proofs from that stupid trial,try "MJ conspiracy". I don't want to read a book which is full of nonsense stuffs about Michael
 
Lol007 said:
Just to clear one thing: Halperin dedicates 150 pages of his book defending Michael against the molestation accusations. He also calls Michael a humanitarian. He adds that, at first, he thought Michael was a pedophile but, after doing some research, Ian reached one conclusion: Michael was absolutely innocent. He was going to name his book "Peter Pan or Pervert" before doing research, in 2004. You all should read the book.
Click to expand...

Interesting... Sadly, his unfounded other claims don't five much credibility to anything he says... Blind of one eye?. Clearly not true (at least it doesn't seem so from the This is it clips...).

About him saying Michael was gay... aren't some fans a little too upset about the idea?. I mean, would it matter?.

I had always had the impression he was gay. Now that I know more about him, I think he was probably straight, but I'm not that sure... I certainly woulnd't love him any less either way anyway.
 
Crisstti said:
Interesting... Sadly, his unfounded other claims don't five much credibility to anything he says... Blind of one eye?. Clearly not true (at least it doesn't seem so from the This is it clips...).

About him saying Michael was gay... aren't some fans a little too upset about the idea?. I mean, would it matter?.

I had always had the impression he was gay. Now that I know more about him, I think he was probably straight, but I'm not that sure... I certainly wouldn't love him any less either way anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it was michael who had to go and deny he was gay so he seemed a little annoyed being asked.
 
Crisstti said:
Interesting... Sadly, his unfounded other claims don't five much credibility to anything he says... Blind of one eye?. Clearly not true (at least it doesn't seem so from the This is it clips...).

About him saying Michael was gay... aren't some fans a little too upset about the idea?. I mean, would it matter?.

I had always had the impression he was gay. Now that I know more about him, I think he was probably straight, but I'm not that sure... I certainly woulnd't love him any less either way anyway.
Click to expand...
Let me say one more time: It's not just the gay thing:

Ian in his book and on his blog that:
1. Michael was gay and a cross dresser
2. Michael had skin cancer
3. Was blind in one eye, almost deaf, and needed a liver transplant
4. The book was originally titled "Peter Pan or Pervert"
5. Couldn't sing or dance anymore and that the people at rehearsals said "It's over for him"
6. Michael was suicidal
7. Michael did cocaine

IAN WAS THE GUY WHO STARTED THE RUMOR THAT MICHAEL HAD 6 MONTHS TO LIVE

check out TCSM's statement about Ian and his claims in the Enough Is Enough section
 
Ian is pulling stuff straight out of his a$$, but I have to give him credit for admitting that MJ was a victim of extortion by the Arvizos. Many of his ilk would have tried and spun a reason why he was guilty. At least, he admitted he was wrong.
 
Victory2004 said:
Yeah but it was michael who had to go and deny he was gay so he seemed a little annoyed being asked.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he seemed annoyed. As far as I know about him denying it:

- Some journalist said he asked him in the 70's or early 80's if he was gay, and he asked him to turn the recorder off, and said that he wasn't, but that he didn't want to say in tape because he didn't want to ofend their gay fans (or something like that).
- That video from the court deposition from the lawsuit of those Neverland employees (the News of the World video...), when among a list he's reading of untrue things people would say about him, he says "I'm not gay". There, he doesn't sound annoyed to me. He just kinda sounds as if he thinks it's absurd that people think that. He actually sounds so sincere, that I find it hard to think he was lying and was really gay.
 
Lol007 said:
Just to clear one thing: Halperin dedicates 150 pages of his book defending Michael against the molestation accusations. He also calls Michael a humanitarian. He adds that, at first, he thought Michael was a pedophile but, after doing some research, Ian reached one conclusion: Michael was absolutely innocent. He was going to name his book "Peter Pan or Pervert" before doing research, in 2004. You all should read the book.
Click to expand...
I have the stupid book and it is a repeat of Aphrodite Jones book without the facts. The facts are what we need to discredit the other people writing books not fiction. This does not help MJ at all. It has nothing to do with the gay part. Michael has said time and time again he was not gay but if he was I would not love him any less. It is all about the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top