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

[KOPV]

than you could not have a full 100% fair judgment of the book..

That is just a fair statement, you can come back and say something along the lines.. "I don't need to read the full book to know its garbage"!

.... But you kind of do! I've stopped reading a few books because I opened them up and was complete tabloid and I stopped reading it because I thought it was trash, but I can't sit there and tell people that have read the whole book how horrible it is and have a fair debate when I don't know the whole book..

It's like getting half way through a movie and saying it's horrible and shutting it off.. Sometimes significant event happens that changes everything!!

I mean my guess is you'd still not like the book even if you read it through, so it probably does not matter. But to those who would read it, it does!



Anyways, I think the person who opened the thread has enough to go off with the back and forth we've done here! they can make there own choice about reading it or not.. I'm curious to know the decision and how it goes!

Staying tuned

 

[la_cienega]

By no means do I feel this way. It's obvious that any Michael Jackson biography (Man in the Music, The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story, Conspiracy) has more reputable sources than any tabloid, particularly in the 1993 case. As far as information goes, at least ninety percent of the sources Taraborelli gives are interviews that he himself gave; he mostly uses other articles for interviews given by others or reviews on Michael's music and/or behavior. Go check the "Source Notes" section.

90% are tabloids and he misquoted some of the people he interviewed.

How do I know? I spoke to some of the people he misquoted.

They told me he took their words and edited and added them to other people's words and his own in order to make the quotes say things the people hadn't intended. Do you know how hard it is for people around Mike to speak up because of having bullshit like that happen to them?

Also, people who knew JRT have spoken about how he edits his stories - changes things he'd claimed, enhances his position in MJ's life, hadn't actually spoken to Mike properly after the mid 90s, etc. Hell, you can see it in some of what he says about Mike speaking to him around 1994-1995 - he uses one interview MJ gave to The Mirror in 1994 and chops and cuts it up a bit in various places to make it sound like a series of personal confidential phonecalls Mike had made just to him as a friend.

You above said that the Chandlers mislead Mary Fischer for her article, and fans call Taraborelli a liar. How are we to say that he wasn't mislead?

LOL he knew at the time that she owed Michael millions of dollars and all the rest of her lawsuit, and yet he didn't include that but included her words as a fact - words she entirely made up, as she admitted in 2005 when she testified that she was not even there on the day of the raid. And because YOU prioritized JRT's "research" you actually were prepared to claim what she said could be true, instead of actually bothering to research it yourself.

The fact that he let Evan Chandler circumvent his NDA for his book speaks volumes about his journalistic integrity. That right there should've had him questioning Evan - because who would rather sell books and speak to journalists in private than actually testify against Michael? Any sane person would be able to see that doesn't make sense. Yet JRT was too thirsty to use him to care about how it obviously revealed what the Chandler's real intentions had always been.

When you find yourself going "He printed it in this book therefore we should assume it's true and so what if it is" instead of questioning it, then there's a huge problem with his book and what it does to people's beliefs about MJ.

but are totally against Taraborelli simply because he was honest with his assessment of Michael's innocence.

According to you.

I will always find it hilarious how people will try and defend these other people by talking about how Michael wasn't perfect and how stories about him not being perfect need to be stated - and yet these people will do and say all that while acting like someone else is perfect. Apparently Michael Jackson is flawed, but JRT is a saint truth seeker who could do no wrong and nobody should ever question, but we should instead question anyone who tries to speak against him.

Hilarious.

 

[AlwaysThere]

*sigh* I don't know anymore, MJJC. I really don't.

Let's reapproach the thought that Taraborelli is purposely playing for both sides, which in and of itself remains absolutely ridiculous. The below quote comes directly from his book:

Many of Michael's fans and family members have been angry with me over the years for not being unequivocal about Michael's' innocence where Jordie Chandler was concerned. I understand that they feel Michael's denials to me in interviews should have been enough to convince me, and of course his commentary about it went a long way with me. But the fact of the matter is that I was never in the same room with Michael and Jordie. How could I know for sure what went on between them? But much more important--unlike the situation with Gavin--I wasn't presented with more than sixty days of sworn testimony to help me make up my mind. I wanted to believe that Michael was innocent of any wrongdoing with Jordie Chandler, of course. I hoped this was the case. But in the end, in my view anyway, blind faith is a wonderful thing reserved only for family members and very, very close friends. The rest of us just have hope--and that's not the same as knowledge.

Then, there was the fact that Michael paid Jordie seventeen million dollars. Certainly, that didn't help clear his name. I remember interviewing Michael right after the settlement was made and telling him that I was extremely disappointed that he'd paid the Chandlers so many millions. I told him that, from that moment on, people would always believe he was guilty as charged. It was the first time I'd ever heard Michael swear. "I don't give a [expletive deleted] what people think," he told me, angrily. He said that the litigation had ruined his life, that he was absolutely innocent but that he also had the money to have the whole thing away. It was the first time, I thought, Jackson didn't make a decision with an eye toward how it would play out in the public arena. In some ways, I remember thinking it was a defining moment for him. I wondered if maybe all of the image-making days were behind him.

Taraborelli offers accurate points throughout the entire quote. Honestly, none of us were in the room with Michael and Jordan and, even though we are all quite sure of his innocence, none of us can say that we know he was innocent. All we can say is that we firmly believe it due to the evidence that we have about the case.

Secondly, la_cienega, prove your claim for us. I've seen multiple people on this board call Taraborelli because he names numerous "anonymous sources" that could very easily be no one and be based around comments that he himself made up. Yet at this moment you are doing the same thing. I will take this back if you willingly say who these people are, but for the time being you're almost like Taraborelli in that sense.

Third, Snow White, I'm not even going to argue with you from this point on. In the 2009 update, the Chandler section spans from page 453 to 554, 101 pages that I'm fairly certain you did not read. Before you begin calling Taraborelli anything, I would suggest that you go back and read that section from beginning to end. Not only that, maybe read the whole book at some point. Regardless of what you may unfairly claim, there isn't another book on Michael's life that is as definitive, in depth or strongly researched.

 

[HIStory]

Taraborelli offers accurate points throughout the entire quote. Honestly, none of us were in the room with Michael and Jordan and, even though we are all quite sure of his innocence, none of us can say that we know he was innocent. All we can say is that we firmly believe it due to the evidence that we have about the case.

That's the same with the Arvizo case. None of us were in the room. Yet, in that case JRT confidently states that he believes in Michael's innocence. He says that's because he sat through the trial. It's true that in the Chandler case there wasn't a trial, but still there are numerous ways to research that case which JRT obviously was too lazy to do. Otherwise he would know how "trustworthy" people like Adrian McManus are. Or if he knew and still published her story as if it's a fact it makes him look only worse. He's either a bad journalist or a dishonest journalist, the choice is yours. Moreover, the problem with Taraborelli's Chandler case section is not that he has questionmarks. The problem is that he inserts false stories to make Michael look guilty. But many of us have stated this already numerous times in this thread. I guess we can agree that just because he wasn't in the room with Michael and Jordan he does not need to insert false stories like the claim that Michael had his maids hide incriminating evidence before the search.

And by the way, it's funny to hear from JRT of all people this whole "I wasn't in the room" excuse, when his modus operandi is to act like he was in the room when he presents certain stories and alleged conversations between people. If he says he wasn't in the room with Michael and Jordan then he should not act like he was and publish stories like when Michael and Jordan were in a room together Michael could not take his eyes off the boy. Again, presenting such stories as if they are established facts.

Regardless of what you may unfairly claim, there isn't another book on Michael's life that is as definitive, in depth or strongly researched.

Only to the uncritical reader.

They told me he took their words and edited and added them to other people's words and his own in order to make the quotes say things the people hadn't intended. Do you know how hard it is for people around Mike to speak up because of having bullshit like that happen to them?

La_Cienega will speak for herself, but just from the top of my head, since this little story from JRT's book about how MJ allegedly called his relationship with Jordan "cosmic" was mentioned earlier in this thread. This story is also in Ray Chandler's book, that's one of the reasons why we know Evan was JRT's source for it. However interestingly Ray Chandler's book gives more context to it than Taraborelli. It says what Michael meant was:

"Cosmic? At first Evan thought Michael evasive. Then it dawned on him that the singer was referring to the three chance encounters he and Jordie had over the years."

Yet, Taraborelli omits this part from his book, making the remark look creepier than the Chandlers do! That's some feat! To out-Chandler the Chandlers...

I will always find it hilarious how people will try and defend these other people by talking about how Michael wasn't perfect and how stories about him not being perfect need to be stated - and yet these people will do and say all that while acting like someone else is perfect. Apparently Michael Jackson is flawed, but JRT is a saint truth seeker who could do no wrong and nobody should ever question, but we should instead question anyone who tries to speak against him.

Hilarious.

Absolutely.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Girls, this just getting more ridiculous every time. We proved already how JRT omitted information on purpose to give a creepier meaning that it really had, yet AleaysThere insists he's accurate and trustworthy, I seriously don't get how. 1. He made/persuaded Evan braking his confidentiality agreement by passing him as an "anonymous source." 2. And more importantly, he wasn't interested to get the accounts of the main character of his book, Michael himself.

WTF is that excuse of "we weren't in the same room?" I know we weren't but someone with dignity and common sense wouldn't want under any circumstance money from someone who raped/abused you but you'd want that creep rotting in jail instead. As I said before, Jordan and Evan had all the right to pursuit a criminal trial but as soon as they got the money they run.

 

[Petrarose]

Snow White I thank you guys for the factual information about the allegations as usual and wanted to explore this comment I saw above-- that people think Michael is guilty because of his actions and given as an example was holding Garvin's hand, and the infamous bed situation, etc. The dangerous thing about this idea, which is held by thousands of people, is that they are blaming someone for a crime based on "their" subjective feelings of right and wrong. Remember they are not using facts. In their heads these actions should not be done, so they use behaviors that have NO legal criminal definition to define criminal behavior and call someone guilty of a crime. I find this type of thinking very dangerous and sick, and we know how innocent people/groups/cultures have suffered due to this type of thinking. These people do not even realize that someone or a group of people first put the idea into their heads that a grown man holding a child's hand shows criminal behavior, for them to first begin to think it so themselves. Then, forget the whole context of Michael's behavior and why he acted the way he did--that gets thrown out because we must punish this man because he dared to do something that we think should not be done. Yet there is NO Law that says holding a boy's hand, having boys share your bed are crimes. So basically with that type of thinking facts won't help, because it is the way of thinking that is the problem. It is not that the person does not have facts, but that the way of thinking is the blockage. Once you get the person to use different ways of thinking out things, then their minds will be opened to the facts. It is like me telling you two men sleeping together is a wrong, so if a little boy claims molestation by one of the men, I will tell you I believe because the man slept with a man. No matter how much facts you give me I will still tell you I believe because that man slept with a man which is wrong.

1) Whenever you see writings that claim that there are negative things in the book so the writer is a good journalist, then you know presenting facts will not really help. The writing is saying that negative information is a criteria for being unbiased or showing good journalist guidelines, and not facts.

2) Writings stating that fans don't like a book because it has negative things in it, is usually an attempt to discredit any posts that contain facts or to prevent a deeper critical analysis.

3) Any writings stating that information is right/good/solid solely because it is in a book, shows that value comes from what something is encased in and not the quality of what is inside, so giving facts won't help that viewpoint much.

4) The comment about not being in the room so don't know if Michael is innocent, is another one used when someone does not want to take a stand. If we all went by that comment, then juries, even with their facts from people, would shake their heads and lament, "We were not in the room, so we can't say guilty or not." The point is that people do have the same facts that a jury hears, but they disregard the facts because that "idea in the mind of what is right behavior" takes control.

5) Then, we have the people who like to stress that Michael made a lot of mistakes, as though he made the most mistakes in the world or he is in the top 10. They have never counted up all the mistakes they know Michael made and then count up theirs to see if the number was more of less equal. Worse, it is almost as though making mistakes shows he is guilty. What is the point of reading a book to find out Michael was partly guilty. You can't be a partial pedo. If you molested Chandler but did not molest Gavin, you are still a pedo. No wonder the haters find such value in that book.

Anyway I am hoping that visitors who do not have much knowledge of the allegations, and have more open minds, will read your facts and come out with a better understanding.

 

[HIStory]

^ Yeah, unfortunately many people want to base a judgement on flawed personal beliefs instead of facts. An example: I had a discussion regarding the allegations on another board a couple of months ago. It's not an MJ board but someone brought up the allegations against him and I had to correct many misconceptions and false beliefs. There was one woman however, especially bitter and hell-bent on believing the worst of and spouting crap about MJ. As it turned out her cousin or whatever works for the Santa Barbara DA office so you could see where the bias came from. She claimed there were tons of evidence against MJ and that's true because her cousin told her so. I told her simply if that is the case how come all that evidence was never introduced to court. She could not really answer to that and although she insisted she knew a lot about the case, from her answers it was clear she didn't. Just the usual flawed soundbites one gathers from the media.

Anyway, why I mention this is, because one of her "arguments" was (as usual) that scene in the Bashir documentary where MJ and Gavin held hands and Gavin leaned his head on Michael's shoulder. She said that scene was enough to prove to her that Michael molested that boy because the boy "seemed so submissive".

This showedcased her total ignorance of the case coupled with a great amount of prejudice. Because if she really knew the case she would know that according to the Arvizo allegations Michael had not molested Gavin at that point yet. According to their timeline he started to molest him only after the Bashir documentary. Moreover if she knew anything of the case she would also know that Gavin was anything but a "submissive" type of boy. She would also know that Michael and Gavin hardly even met each other for three years before the Bashir documentary and in fact, according to Gavin's own testimony, Michael was actively avoiding him whenever he went to Neverland... So where would this supposed "submission" come from? But she wanted to see in that scene what she wanted to see and even when I told her these facts she insisted on her assasment being right. LOL. So this just shows that most people just believe whatever they want to believe based on their prejudices even in the face of evidence otherwise.

1) Whenever you see writings that claim that there are negative things in the book so the writer is a good journalist, then you know presenting facts will not really help. The writing is saying that negative information is a criteria for being unbiased or showing good journalist guidelines, and not facts.

Yes, I realized it too. That for some people the criteria for being "balanced" is that a book or article contains negative things about the subject as well as positive. Taraborelli is supposedly "objective" for some because besides positive he also says negative things about Michael. But that's not how you decide if someone is objective and if a book is good. You decide it based on the truthfulness of the claims in it - whether those claims are positive or negative. And if a book contains obvious and proven lies then how can that book be "objective" and a "good book"?

 

[AlwaysThere]

I'm not going to argue anymore. Of course, different strokes for different folks. I think we all got a bit heated after a while of discussion. If any feelings were hurt or anything was taken a step too far, I apologize. I still have my opinion but of course I will respect everyone else's.

=Snow White luvs Peter Pan;3972787]Girls, this just getting more ridiculous every time. We proved already how JRT omitted information on purpose to give a creepier meaning that it really had, yet AleaysThere insists he's accurate and trustworthy, I seriously don't get how. 1. He made/persuaded Evan braking his confidentiality agreement by passing him as an "anonymous source." 2. And more importantly, he wasn't interested to get the accounts of the main character of his book, Michael himself.

Allow me to simply offer this.

1) You still haven't read the full Chandler section, so I can't take much of your criticism. As I have said, in the 2009 update it is between page 453 to 554. Before you begin complaining that Taraborelli wrote this or said that, why don't you actually read it so arguments can be valid?

2) He wasn't interested in getting Michael's account? Really? Firstly, anyone in the world can account for the fact that getting ahold of Michael was damn near impossible. Taraborelli is lucky because he had numerous phone calls with him. (And yes, I do believe these phone calls were real.) He got one statement from him in 1994, in which Michael insisted that he was innocent of all charges. That's all you really need to be quite honest. Michael doesn't need to sit down, listen to everything Evan said against him and offer his view on it. He doesn't need to because he is innocent, and he has said so.

 

[KOPV]

In reality we cannot argue intent.. We can only debate about what we believe the intent was!!

is there any FACT that TRB purposely said things to make him appear guilty? No!!! That is only a matter of interpretation and opinion. Just like it would be for someone saying he did not try to.. That is all opinions..

When it's a matter of opinion there is no end to a debate, that can literally go on forever..

The only way you can chance someone opinion truthfully is stating facts that would change opinion, not stating opinion over opinion.

We've done a lot of that here.. All of us (Even me)


It's my opinion that it is a pretty good book, most in-depth book.. Do I believe it is 100% accurate no.. I don't know 1 MJ book that is! not even Moonwalker, like I said before..

I have read enough about Michael to come up with my conclusion of the true MJ story. (Which that cannot be 100% accurate either)... When you read more and more books, and see how stories intertwine from one persons book to another's, you can kind of put together what really happened.

So If (The person that started this thread) reads the book, go into it subjectively, taking it almost like a persons testimony of what they know & believe.. That is sometimes not accurate because what they see could not be what really happened..


But when you read more and more books (Different testimonies) you will put the puzzle together and know what stories fit and what stories don't fit.. and get a clearer picture of what is accurate..


I think we all can find equal ground on that!!

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

For me, I would recommend a lot of other MJ books before this one. I read it back in 2009 and thought it was a decent read at the time apart from the section on the 1993 allegations and Taraborreli making Michael out to be a like a spoiled brat, which pissed me off. But I was kind of naive back then and didn't realize all the tabloid sources he used.

 

[Petrarose]

^
Anyway, why I mention this is, because one of her "arguments" was (as usual) that scene in the Bashir documentary where MJ and Gavin held hands and Gavin leaned his head on Michael's shoulder. She said that scene was enough to prove to her that Michael molested that boy because the boy "seemed so submissive".

This showedcased her total ignorance of the case coupled with a great amount of prejudice. Because if she really knew the case she would know that according to the Arvizo allegations Michael had not molested Gavin at that point yet. According to their timeline he started to molest him only after the Bashir documentary. Moreover if she knew anything of the case she would also know that Gavin was anything but a "submissive" type of boy. She would also know that Michael and Gavin hardly even met each other for three years before the Bashir documentary and in fact, according to Gavin's own testimony, Michael was actively avoiding him whenever he went to Neverland... So where would this supposed "submission" come from? But she wanted to see in that scene what she wanted to see and even when I told her these facts she insisted on her assasment being right. LOL. So this just shows that most people just believe whatever they want to believe based on their prejudices even in the face of evidence otherwise.

^^Great post as usual. That submission thing is typical--the idea that this type of behavior means the person was molested. This reminds me of a great learning experience I had years ago, that went something like this: One professor gave us a black and white picture of 2 people sitting and asked us what we saw. Everyone saw a whole bunch of things that they created in their minds. One girl said they were Hispanics and they had an argument about the girl being pregnant. She gave a long story and included dialog. Then, one guy said all I see is 2 people sitting down. Bravo. The professor said that is exactly what it is and we were cautioned about this type of behavior and why.

Thank goodness you presented the whole timeline and the information about how forceful he was in court and in school. At least other posters got to read some facts. To me that holding hands scene shows Michael is not comfortable, so it does not look as something that he would have done to the boy on a regular basis. That is why I felt the action was contrived. Anyway that is only my subjective feelings about it.

^^Just saw something up there about we can't argue intent. Of course you can argue intent. In court the prosecution shows intent all the time. How is it done? Well with facts of course. The stronger the facts the better the person's ability to show that intent. If the prosecution has little facts, he can't show that intent. So, of course readers can show intent in the book, if they can put some facts together that show it. This is just like the argument that states I was not in the room so I don't know. How do the jury know? By looking at the facts and this case is not like those where there is little evidence to show innocence. Just like the Muarry case, there were no facts showing intent to kill Michael and that is why the prosecution went with the allegation they did. So yes you can argue intent, by using brilliant minds, being critical and lining up those facts that lead one to show intent. It is done in a court of law all the time.

 

[Mike P.]

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.

It's funny that you have all of his albums on CD and only one Cassette, which looks to be Bad? If so that's the only one I have too, lol. I used to have everything up to Dangerous on Cassette as a kid but lost them all years ago. Also, What is that huge version of Number Ones you have?

 

[MJresearcher]

Just joined this forum today, I'm glad to see that people here aren't afraid of discussing things that are a difficult subject to read about. I'm very impressed with the knowledge people here have about the allegations concerning Michael, I've done my own research and haven't seen many people on the internet or otherwise besides the Vindicating Michael websites who have a decent knowledge of any of it. I'm thankful that there are fans who aren't scared to know the truth and are serious about getting the facts straight instead of being blissfully ignorant about all of it because it isn't a nice subject.

I think the discussions in this thread have been handled well, yes it got heated but for an internet discussion I believe it's pretty civil and level-headed. Because of that this MJ community has convinced me that this site is good and that things can be discussed rationally which is something I haven't seen on many internet sites. Thank you, the passion on here to know the truth is a breath of fresh air for me.