Does anybody have The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story, 1958-2009 By J. Randy Taraborrelli?

seeker77

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
5
Points
0
Really really sorry to bring this up again :ermm: I know it's been discussed a million times. The threads on this subject were all closed so I couldn't post it there.
I'm trying to read as much mj as I can during the short time I have.Just finished another one. I don't wanna trust in just one author plus I want to know the facts in a whole structured order. Would someone please be so kind and send me a pdf of the book or epub to me? :blush:
I know you all probably passed this stage.
I'll be real grateful if you'll send it to me.
;D
 
^^^ Thank you so much Bubs ! After reading the title of this thread i was thinking "pfff, ok let's google another Michael Jackson book and find nothing again." Then i saw your link i was like ":wild:".

I've known this website for ages but did not spot the book for some reason. :)

Thanks to the creator of this thread as well. :)

Edit: Hold on, there are several versions. Which one is the best or the least you know... you know ?
 
Last edited:
There are several versions because he started the book in 1993 and updated it with Michael's life.

Personally I've read them all but I own the 2009 edition. Just make sure you take it with a grain of salt. He cites a lot of tabloid garbage and has the usual 'unnamed mj/jackson family sources.' I don't know why this book gets quoted as fact so much.

Also a warning...the book is gigantic! You can see it compared in size to my other MJ books.
tumblr_n26ol1gssP1rdj7hio4_1280.jpg
 
^^^ Thank you so much Bubs ! After reading the title of this thread i was thinking "pfff, ok let's google another Michael Jackson book and find nothing again." Then i saw your link i was like ":wild:".

I've known this website for ages but did not spot the book for some reason. :)

Thanks to the creator of this thread as well. :)

Edit: Hold on, there are several versions. Which one is the best or the least you know... you know ?

If you want to read complete Magic and Madness, you have o start with Original 1991 version, then 1994 chapters, then 2003 chapters, and finally 2009. If you start with 1994 version, you only get chapters that were added that year.

----------------
Eilonna A, burn that book on top of your book stack. I take Taraborelli any time over R Chandler.
 
Eilonna A, burn that book on top of your book stack. I take Taraborelli any time over R Chandler.

Taraborelli's book uses Evan Chandler as a source for the 1993 allegations too. Just saying. Moreover Carole Lieberman was a "consultant" to Taraborelli's book in terms of "psycho-analyzing" MJ. So take everything in it with a HUGE mountain of salt!
In a way I find Taraborelli more dangerous, because I have seen so many fans support and recommend this book as if it's a good book, when it's full of lies and innuendo. Only JRT presents it in a slick way, acting as if he is sympathetic to MJ while spreading lies about him. I would not recommend this book, it's lots of tabloid gossip, but of course everyone reads what they want.
 
Taraborelli's book uses Evan Chandler as a source for the 1993 allegations too. Just saying. Moreover Carole Lieberman was a "consultant" to Taraborelli's book in terms of "psycho-analyzing" MJ. So take everything in it with a HUGE mountain of salt!
In a way I find Taraborelli more dangerous, because I have seen so many fans support and recommend this book as if it's a good book, when it's full of lies and innuendo. Only JRT presents it in a slick way, acting as if he is sympathetic to MJ while spreading lies about him. I would not recommend this book, it's lots of tabloid gossip, but of course everyone reads what they want.

I've read some excerpts from JRT's book and can't help but find it a huge mess. Some of it sounds a little too well-written, like it's a fictional story. There's a part in there that makes Michael look guilty and it really sickened me to read that. :(
 
For me, Taraborelli's book is a mixed bag. As Amaya has said, it is formatted more like a novel at times (particularly regarding the supposed last time Michael ever spoke to Jordan Chandler).

But as a whole, it's probably one of the more informative books out there, particularly because it intricately details Michael's entire life. He is one of the few people who have actually spoken to Michael face to face and has indeed seen a number of documents we as fans could only dream of (all of which he notes in the back of the book). It's probably one of the better books on Michael's I have read.

And we can't chastise him for having an opinion. I firmly believe Michael was innocent, but if he wants to believe that he may have been guilty, let him do so.
 
No one needs to read the whole book, watching him at the different tabloid TV programs about Michael he's appeared in is more than enough to realize he's full of :bs: seriously. If you bought Taraborelli's book Eilonna, you should ask for reimbursement or throw it away and/or burn it with that Chandler book.
 
And we can't chastise him for having an opinion. I firmly believe Michael was innocent, but if he wants to believe that he may have been guilty, let him do so.

I don't mean to chastise him for his opinion, but I find it puzzling that many fans support a book written by a guy who implies that Michael's guilty. Why would a fan defend something that makes Michael look bad after all the time that was spent championing his innocence? Then again, in a later chapter he writes that Gavin Arvizo's testimony wasn't credible, so who knows what he really thinks.
 
But as a whole, it's probably one of the more informative books out there, particularly because it intricately details Michael's entire life. He is one of the few people who have actually spoken to Michael face to face and has indeed seen a number of documents we as fans could only dream of (all of which he notes in the back of the book). It's probably one of the better books on Michael's I have read.

Just because a book is detailed it doesn't mean it's informative if the information is wrong. And a lot of it in JRT's book is wrong.

He CLAIMS he talked to MJ regularly, but I have big doubts about that claim. Anyone can claim anything and JRT's only "proof" is an old photo with MJ from the 70s, when JRT was the president of some Diana Ross fan club or something. Until this day JRT uses that one photo as a proof that he knew MJ. Why doesn't he have newer photos if that is true? And one photo does not prove anything. Many fans have a photo with MJ that doesn't main they could claim to have personally known him and be some kind of insider on his life.

And we can't chastise him for having an opinion. I firmly believe Michael was innocent, but if he wants to believe that he may have been guilty, let him do so.

Thing is, JRT is a two-faced liar. He tries to play for both crowds at once. He wants MJ fans to buy his book and so to MJ fans he says he thinks MJ was innocent. Yet, he leaves enough innuendo in his book to suggest otherwise, which is extremely harmful. Especially when fans promote that book to outsiders as something that is truthful, when it is not and it portrays MJ as a possible child molester. The innuendo he places in his book is not based on facts either. He does not name his main source on the 1993 allegations but when you know Ray Chandler's book it becomes obvious that Evan was JRT's main source for that part. If JRT is honest and genuine then why did not he reveal that in his book? So that people would know that the so called "information" comes from a biased source? Obviously he did not want to scare off MJ fans from buying his book that's why he did not reveal that. When Evan died JRT revealed on his FB that he indeed was in contact with Evan. He talked about how aggressive and violent and what a son of a b... he was. So why did he use him as a source then? And why did not he reveal that he was the source? It's all to convenient to act after MJ's death as if you did not believe Evan, but you did put his claims in your book... As I said two-faced liar who tried to cater to both fans and haters at the same time. And some fans do not even realize that JRT's book is constantly used by haters against MJ. That's how harmful it is.
 
Last edited:
Just because a book is detailed it doesn't mean it's informative if the information is wrong. And a lot of it in JRT's book is wrong.

Let's be fair here though. Name a single Michael Jackson biography that has every single piece of information correct. No one can because every single book released on Michael has errors here and there.

He CLAIMS he talked to MJ regularly, but I have big doubts about that claim. Anyone can claim anything and JRT's only "proof" is an old photo with MJ from the 70s, when JRT was the president of some Diana Ross fan club or something. Until this day JRT uses that one photo as a proof that he knew MJ. Why doesn't he have newer photos if that is true? And one photo does not prove anything. Many fans have a photo with MJ that doesn't main they could claim to have personally known him and be some kind of insider on his life.

JRT said he talked to Michael regularly. There is a major difference between "talked" and "spent time with". JRT in his book mostly says that he and Michael only spoke over the phone. Even so, where does it say that he is forced to take a photo with Michael every time they did see one another to prove that they were indeed in contact?

Thing is, JRT is a two-faced liar. He tries to play for both crowds at once. He wants MJ fans to buy his book and so to MJ fans he says he thinks MJ was innocent. Yet, he leaves enough innuendo in his book to suggest otherwise, which is extremely harmful. Especially when fans promote that book to outsiders as something that is truthful, when it is not and it portrays MJ as a possible child molester. The innuendo he places in his book is not based on facts either. He does not name his main source on the 1993 allegations but when you know Ray Chandler's book it becomes obvious that Evan was JRT's main source for that part. If JRT is honest and genuine then why did not he reveal that in his book? So that people would know that the so called "information" comes from a biased source? Obviously he did not want to scare off MJ fans from buying his book that's why he did not reveal that. When Evan died JRT revealed on his FB that he indeed was in contact with Evan. He talked about how aggressive and violent and what a son of a b... he was. So why did he use him as a source then? And why did not he reveal that he was the source? It's all to convenient to act after MJ's death as if you did not believe Evan, but you did put his claims in your book... As I said two-faced liar who tried to cater to both fans and haters at the same time. And some fans do not even realize that JRT's book is constantly used by haters against MJ. That's how harmful it is.

This is a major problem with the Michael fan community. When anyone has any slight doubt in Michael's innocence, that automatically calls for criticism. JRT was a fan of Michael, and by the end of the book had only a positive outlook on the man. But he does have a shadow of doubt in his mind as far as the 1993 accusations go. So what? I've spoken to many fans who feel that way. JRT does not have to think everything Michael does is positive. I don't. And if anyone here does, they're naive.

To me, it makes sense to use Evan as a source. After all, HE WAS THE FATHER OF THE PERSON WHO WAS ACCUSING HIM. Besides, Evan wasn't his only credible source. Check the bibliography in the back of the book. Evan could very easily have asked to remain anonymous when the book came out. Did anyone ever think of that?

It seems that fans are only mad because JRT doesn't find Michael to be picture perfect.
 
This is a major problem with the Michael fan community. When anyone has any slight doubt in Michael's innocence, that automatically calls for criticism. JRT was a fan of Michael, and by the end of the book had only a positive outlook on the man. But he does have a shadow of doubt in his mind as far as the 1993 accusations go. So what? I've spoken to many fans who feel that way. JRT does not have to think everything Michael does is positive. I don't. And if anyone here does, they're naive.

I know Michael wasn't perfect, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that the presentation of that moment in his life is slanted towards the negative, and like respect77 said that gets used by the haters to argue that he was guilty. Even if you present evidence that shows that it couldn't be true (that recorded phone call, the genitalia descriptions not matching, etc.), people just say "lol no, he's a pedo." and keep on going. That ignorance is what hurt Michael for the rest of his life.
 
JRT said he talked to Michael regularly. There is a major difference between "talked" and "spent time with". JRT in his book mostly says that he and Michael only spoke over the phone. Even so, where does it say that he is forced to take a photo with Michael every time they did see one another to prove that they were indeed in contact?

The emphasis should be on "JRT said" instead of "talked". Just because JRT claims something it doesn't make it true. Anyone can say they talked to Michael regularly on the phone. I personally have big doubts about that claim by JRT.


This is a major problem with the Michael fan community. When anyone has any slight doubt in Michael's innocence, that automatically calls for criticism. JRT was a fan of Michael, and by the end of the book had only a positive outlook on the man. But he does have a shadow of doubt in his mind as far as the 1993 accusations go. So what? I've spoken to many fans who feel that way. JRT does not have to think everything Michael does is positive. I don't. And if anyone here does, they're naive.

To me, it makes sense to use Evan as a source. After all, HE WAS THE FATHER OF THE PERSON WHO WAS ACCUSING HIM. Besides, Evan wasn't his only credible source. Check the bibliography in the back of the book. Evan could very easily have asked to remain anonymous when the book came out. Did anyone ever think of that?

It seems that fans are only mad because JRT doesn't find Michael to be picture perfect.


JRT wants to play for both crowds, that's why he is so ambigous about the allegations. He wants fans to buy his book, but also wants haters to buy it. (Which they do. As I said JRT's book is one favourite "source" on hater websites.) Unfortunately fans who are not that well researched in the allegations may buy the BS JRT sells as well.

"Evan wasn't his only credible source."

So you consider Evan Chandler a credible source?

I think child abuse allegations are serious enough not to throw them around lightly and when JRT is ready to give credit to some stories that Evan told him by uncritically presenting them in his book, then the least he should have done, if he was a genuine journalist, to name his source, so that at least people would know the story is just a claim by one biased side. That's basic journalistic ethics. An example: I remember a story from the book vividly in which JRT presented Michael and Jordan sitting in a room watching TV and claimed Michael couldn't take his eyes off the boy. The implication here is clear, without JRT calling MJ a pedophile. But when you think about such stories in the book: how would JRT know about something like that when he wasn't in the room? Obviously MJ would not tell him such a thing, so that leaves only the Chandlers as a source. Now, do you think it was fair from JRT to put this story in his book as if it really happened, when it's likely only something Evan Chandler told him it happened? And on top of that, JRT did not even name his source, so his readers might not even realize that it comes from a biased source whose interest is in pushing the "MJ=pedo" agenda.

It's not about fans wanting MJ to be portrayed as perfect. It's about fans wanting a FAIR portrayal of him, not a tabloidish one. I do not like the book (among others, but this is the main one) because it irresponsibly insinuates that Michael might have been a child molester. As someone who probably spent more time researching these allegations than JRT ever did, I find that highly offensive and I also find it very harmful when some fans cluelessly recommend such a book to others as a good book. Just because we do not want MJ to be portrayed as a possible child molester that doesn't mean we think he was perfect. There is a huge gap between being perfect and being a child molester.

Maybe some fans aren't that bothered by the insinuations in the book, but when JRT's book gets used by hater websites and Wikipedia as well as an accurate account of MJ's life and an accurate portrayal of MJ there is a big danger that JRT's narrative of him will become the canon on MJ, which is exactly what makes the insinuations in it so dangerous.

And to me there is no excuse for JRT's ignorance about the allegations. He calls himself an MJ biographist. If he truly is he could have and should have made an in-depth research in these allegations, but he obviously didn't because all he does is the rehashing of surface stuff and tabloid narratives.
 
Last edited:
Both sides of the spectrum here (going back and forth) have great points..

No Biography/autobiography will be 100% factual.. Not even Moonwalker BY Michael Jackson.. Same with American Dreams..

All books/movies regarding Michael have truth and non factual information.. A lot of times what writers do is get all the information they can and either do one or all of the fallowing things..

* Fill in the blank spaces of information with what they believe happened (What makes sense to them)
* twist what fits in that space with information that suits the writers personal agenda
* Leaves it blank for the reader to come up with there own story

JRT did all 3!! It is true that he definitely aimed to have the widest spread demographic of readers.. That's the main reason why his book is the most read bio about MJ across the board..

If you can go in reading understanding that, it can still be an enjoyable read.. I think part of the reason why I liked reading it is because it did not feel like a fan or a hater writing it.. I would say overall it is the most unbiased book (overall) than any other I read.

So in that perspective it is overall an enjoyable read to me. Pro MJ books glorify him (which I tend to like those books) and Anti MJ books make him look like a creep (Which I can't stand)

There are things in the book I was like "OK, I'm ignoring this because it's just stupid"... But there has not been one book about Michael that there was not at least 1 or 2 areas that I was like.. "mmmm I doubt that" and continued on..
 
I recently found my old copy of JRT's book and went to the 1993 allegations section. I personally didn't find anything anywhere in that book that made JRT seem like he was anything but defending Michael.

Yes, he does put forth his own concerns. But that's the thing. Being honest doesn't mean you're playing for both haters and fans. It just means that, from the information he is aware of, he has some doubts that Michael is one hundred percent innocent. It's called honesty, and I respect him for it.

I know Michael wasn't perfect, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that the presentation of that moment in his life is slanted towards the negative, and like respect77 said that gets used by the haters to argue that he was guilty. Even if you present evidence that shows that it couldn't be true (that recorded phone call, the genitalia descriptions not matching, etc.), people just say "lol no, he's a pedo." and keep on going. That ignorance is what hurt Michael for the rest of his life.

It's not actually. That entire section is majorly positive and does, on numerous occasions, outline where the Chandler allegations were proven to be inaccurate. All JRT says is that certain situations made him question whether or not Michael was completely innocent. Who are we to yell at him for having an opinion?

Besides, even without the JRT book, there are still going to be people calling Michael a pedophile. That's just life. The general consensus is that he is, and no book is going to change that for the better or worse.

The emphasis should be on "JRT said" instead of "talked". Just because JRT claims something it doesn't make it true. Anyone can say they talked to Michael regularly on the phone. I personally have big doubts about that claim by JRT.

As far as I'm aware, JRT hasn't done anything to make me question his credibility. This isn't an Eddie Cascio we're talking about people. Let's also keep in mind that there were at least three different versions of this book published, two of which while Michael was alive. I'm sure he would have put a stop to anything that wasn't true, or would have at the very least tried. Wouldn't you?

And let's be honest. Much of JRT's book surrounding the 1993 allegations are very well documented and written. Much of it is true, but he does make the occasional error.

So you consider Evan Chandler a credible source?

Not Evan as much as Anthony Pellicano, who also lent his voice to the 1993 section.
 
I recently found my old copy of JRT's book and went to the 1993 allegations section. I personally didn't find anything anywhere in that book that made JRT seem like he was anything but defending Michael.

What about the part where he says the maids had to clean up and hide things, including certain photos that could be interpreted by the casual reader to be pedophilia fodder? That doesn't sound very defensive to me when you write that evidence was being covered up, even if that story turned out to be false anyway.

It's not actually. That entire section is majorly positive and does, on numerous occasions, outline where the Chandler allegations were proven to be inaccurate. All JRT says is that certain situations made him question whether or not Michael was completely innocent. Who are we to yell at him for having an opinion?

Those "certain situations" are all haters will need to argue their case and go "see, we're right!" while ignoring everything else. They thrive on any scrap they can find to support their beliefs, and they're also the ones that will be heard more than anyone else while the counterarguments are buried.

Besides, even without the JRT book, there are still going to be people calling Michael a pedophile. That's just life. The general consensus is that he is, and no book is going to change that for the better or worse.

So we should just give up on trying to spread the truth and let the haters and ignorance win? That's... depressing.
 
What about the part where he says the maids had to clean up and hide things, including certain photos that could be interpreted by the casual reader to be pedophilia fodder? That doesn't sound very defensive to me when you write that evidence was being covered up, even if that story turned out to be false anyway.



Those "certain situations" are all haters will need to argue their case and go "see, we're right!" while ignoring everything else. They thrive on any scrap they can find to support their beliefs, and they're also the ones that will be heard more than anyone else while the counterarguments are buried.



So we should just give up on trying to spread the truth and let the haters and ignorance win? That's... depressing.


Exactly. It's also depressing to think that there are even fans who buy JRT's narrative of the allegations and think he's genuine. JRT doesn't only genuinely express a personal doubt about the 1993 allegations, but he constantly inserts little false stories with the very purpose of raising doubt! Not as explicitly as Bashir did in his "documentary" but it's kind of the same trick. Like the story you mentioned above. If you don't know any better and you are uncritical of JRT for whatever reason you may say: "he's got every right to feel doubt about MJ's innocence when something like that happened - he's just genuine about it". What fans like that do not realize is that most of those stories which raise doubt in the reader are simply not true. Like this claim about maids hiding things. This was claimed by tabloids at the time in an effort to explain away the fact that no incriminating evidence against Michael was found in the searches. But it wasn't true. Still, because JRT was kind enough to put it in his book and act like it's a true story, now haters use that against Michael, because it is suggestive of maids hiding incriminating evidence against MJ. This is just one example but the book is full of stuff like that which are actually very harmful to Michael because rumours and untrue claims are presented in the book as if they were facts. Unfortunately even many fans are not very knowledable about the details of the allegations so it's easy for JRT to mislead many people.

Let's also keep in mind that there were at least three different versions of this book published, two of which while Michael was alive. I'm sure he would have put a stop to anything that wasn't true, or would have at the very least tried. Wouldn't you?

When did Michael ever try to put a stop to a slanderous book about him? Guiterrez's book came out, Diamond's book came out, Bob Jones' book came out. Do you think they are all true just because Michael did not put a stop to them?
 
Last edited:
picking on JRT for using Chandler as a source is silly to me, I mean I would only hope if someone wants to know what happened would speak to ALL parties if possible.. Not just a slanted view! That's what we want right? If you wrote a book wouldn't you do that? Or just talk to people in MJ's world that love him?

Non the less, we don't know what he took from Chandler, after reading his book I would say he most likely took more so stories surrounding how they met, and various non allegation related topics..

A writer can sit down with a murderer (lets say killed wife) and learn how they met, what was there greatest passions, and areas they butted heads..

Not incriminating anyone but just getting untold stories!!


If I were to ever write a book and I had the opportunity was there to talk to the Arvizos or even Jordy - I would do it!! Of course I would..
 
KOPV;3972236 said:
picking on JRT for using Chandler as a source is silly to me, I mean I would only hope if someone wants to know what happened would speak to ALL parties if possible.. Not just a slanted view! That's what we want right? If you wrote a book wouldn't you do that? Or just talk to people in MJ's world that love him?

Non the less, we don't know what he took from Chandler, after reading his book I would say he most likely took more so stories surrounding how they met, and various non allegation related topics..

A writer can sit down with a murderer (lets say killed wife) and learn how they met, what was there greatest passions, and areas they butted heads..

Not incriminating anyone but just getting untold stories!!


If I were to ever write a book and I had the opportunity was there to talk to the Arvizos or even Jordy - I would do it!! Of course I would..

You are misinterpreting what I wrote. The problem is not that he talked to Evan Chandler. I actually used the Chandler's book for my research because listening to what they claim is the way to know what they allege. The problem is that often JRT takes a story that likely Evan told him (either that or JRT made up the story himself) and presents it as if it's something that really happened. Uncritically, not noting that this is just a claim by the accusing side, not necessarily the truth. Like Michael being in a room with Jordan and not being able to take his eyes off him. Not adding that this is just what Evan claims. It would be basic journalistic ethics to add his source if he claims something incriminating about Michael. Because that way his readers would know where the story comes from and consider the source's bias.

Another thing fans have to know about JRT's book that JRT collaborated on it with people like Carole Lieberman. Lieberman mentioned it in an interview back in 2005 that she was consulted by JRT to "psycho-analyze" MJ for his book. For those who are not familiar with Liberman's name:

Daniel Kapon

In 2003, Daniel Kapon was 18 years old when he, accompanied by his mother, contacted the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department claiming he had been sexually molested by Michael Jackson when he was a child. The young man was represented by Gloria Allred, an attorney who also represented the Chandlers for a short period of time in 1993. The claim was that Kapon had “repressed memories” of the molestation and therefore only recently recalled the abuse. The psychiatrist who helped Kapon “remember” was Dr. Carole Lieberman. Allred and Lieberman had filed earlier complaints against Jackson for the so called “baby dangling incident” and campaigned for Jackson’s children to be taken away from him. [4]

The police interviewed the boy but they did not find him credible. He described horrendously sadistic acts, kept changing his story and he claimed impossibilities. Most importantly, when the police contacted Kapon’s father, they learned the boy had never even met Michael Jackson.

On May 28, 2004 the police closed the investigation stating "after an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with the person making the allegations, detectives concluded there was no evidence that any crime occurred. No charges will be sought". [5]

After the police closed their investigation, Kapon sold his story to the tabloid publication, News of the World. Reportedly, the tabloid paid him $500,000 for an approximate half hour video tape where he described the alleged abuse in graphic detail [6]. On May 30, 2004 the paper printed the story of Kapon’s allegations, but failed to mention that the police had already investigated his claims and did not find them credible.The article was published two days after the police released the statement stating that the case had been closed but at the end of the article, the journalist claimed that the investigation in Kapon’s case was actually ongoing [7].

Kapon also filed a civil complaint against Jackson. In his case, besides the allegations of sexual abuse, he claimed that a number of Jackson's hit songs had been stolen from him, including songs on Jackson’s Bad album which was released in 1987. In 1987, Kapon was two years old. Kapon also claimed that he fathered the singer’s two eldest children; that his mother appeared in Jackson’s Thriller video and that Jackson was “madly in love” with her; that “his mother married Jackson multiple times, and testified that the ceremonies were attended by Elizabeth Taylor, Celine Dion, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Beyonce Knowles and Diana Ross” [8].

Daniel Kapon did not show up at start of the civil trial and the case was thrown out of court in January 2008.

So these are the kind of people who helped JRT with that book...
 
^ I get what your saying!!

Playing devils advocate though that story about MJ couldn't keep his eyes off of Jordy.. Well the interpretation of that story is in the eye of the beholder. That in no way is incriminating Michael, if someone read that thinking of MJ in a perverted image than it would look that way, it also can be viewed as someone that adores the child!! So in reality it's not incriminating.

In fact that could have actually happened, he adored children so it would not be too hard to believe he would admire the kid in some ways.

Same with that story I remember with MJ staying there for a lengthy period of time.. Well he did stay at the Cascios for a lengthy period of time too! He could have been recording near by, or simply wanted to get away.. or whatever the story is..

It's only incriminating when someone wants to believe it is!
 
^ I get what your saying!!

Playing devils advocate though that story about MJ couldn't keep his eyes off of Jordy.. Well the interpretation of that story is in the eye of the beholder. That in no way is incriminating Michael, if someone read that thinking of MJ in a perverted image than it would look that way, it also can be viewed as someone that adores the child!! So in reality it's not incriminating.

In fact that could have actually happened, he adored children so it would not be too hard to believe he would admire the kid in some ways.

The implication is pretty clear when you read little stories like that about MJ not being able to take his eyes off the same kid who accused him of sexual molestation. That's why JRT included it and that's why Evan told this to him - in support of their allegations. And again, you are missing the bigger point that is when you include a story that has the potential to be interpreted in a certain way that is negative towards your subject it's unethical not to reveal that the story comes from a biased source and to act like it's a factual story. Evan is a liar. I could show you in detail how he tended to twist innocent situations into making them look creepy and as if MJ was in love with Jordan. So this story is actually very typically Evan. I hope fans at least do not entertain it as being true.
 
^ like I said I get what youre saying, and what I said was just playing devils advocate.. We're not on totally different pages here!

I am 100% clear that JTB did things specifically to get the widest group of readers to read his book.. Keeping that ambiguous line open is what helped make the book what it is..

And when I say "if you can overlook that" that is a big part of what I am talking about.. We know the book is not JUST that, I've never been one to cast out a whole story because specific things are there that I don't agree with.. That's just me though! It's easy for me to bypass that stuff without even remembering it often.

I understandably would understand why there are fans that would not like the book at all.. I get it 100%, I'm just stating my thoughts that IF you can overlook those sections of the book, it's still a good read. If you can't, than don't
 
I don't understand why some of you are defending that crap of a book. I'd never consider fair a book that inserts creepy innuendoes Michael had inappropriate behavior with children or doubt he may be guilty when we know he was 100% innocent. If JRTwere really a fan, he'd had been worried to do his homework and present the fact. He's worried to make money off him instead. I wonder if Marilyn Monroe and Diana Ross received the same biased treatment. I prefer Redemption a million times.
 
What about the part where he says the maids had to clean up and hide things, including certain photos that could be interpreted by the casual reader to be pedophilia fodder? That doesn't sound very defensive to me when you write that evidence was being covered up, even if that story turned out to be false anyway.

I don't know where it says that in the book, so I would love it if you would point me to a page number.

But in any case, what if it was true? What if Michael did have his maids clean up and hide things? If it was true, it SHOULD have been included in the book. That section was a comprehensive review of the 1993 allegations with most available information. So if Michael did something to make himself look guilty, JRT should have included it. It's called honest journalism.

Those "certain situations" are all haters will need to argue their case and go "see, we're right!" while ignoring everything else. They thrive on any scrap they can find to support their beliefs, and they're also the ones that will be heard more than anyone else while the counterarguments are buried.

Do you know why the general public thinks Michael is a child molester? Because of HIS actions. He did hang around with young children a lot, he did spend nights in the same room as them and he admitted freely to all of this. He even was holding Gavin Arvizo's hand and discussing sleeping arrangements in Living With Michael Jackson!

I'm aware that Michael is innocent. But to me, it seems like you're saying that any book that provides even the slightest doubt is immediately wrong.

If everything in JRT's book is factual (which I believe it is, because he has done nothing noteworthy to make me question him), then Michael did do multiple things to make himself look guilty. But still, the REST OF THAT SECTION OUTLINES HOW HE CLEARLY WASN'T. If a "hater" only confines him/herself to that part of the book and still tries to justify Michael being guilty, well they're idiots.

How about we all realize that sometimes Michael put himself in these situations by doing/saying too much, and not get mad at the reporters for actually reporting it. We all whine that the media never says the truth, but when it DOES, even if it seems incriminating, we still get mad. Pick a side.
 
Back
Top