Need some help schooling some people on things

[HIStory]

Boy - A Photographic Essay was from that Rhonda girl, and the two of them were locked inside that cabinet only Francia could open?

Yes, Boy - A Photographic Essay was the one inscribed by that fan Rhonda and Boys Will Be Boys was inscribed by MJ.

I remember that during the trial once Diane Dimond too dangled these two books on TV and she said something along the lines that they would not be alarming if it was found in the context of a collection of books for example of someone who is generally interested in art photography. She forgot to add that THAT'S EXCATLY the context they were found in! LOL.

Some quotes supporting this.

From the photo book Before He Was King by Todd Gray:

"When Michael did find time to relax, he loved to leaf through photographic picture books. He would bring his favorite books with him on tour and buy more books while on the road - the bus weighted with an increasing number of boxes as we left each city. The Triumph Tour began in Memphis with no boxes; by the time we got to Dallas, a few days later, I noticed two; then came Houston; and by the time we hit San Antonio, I noticed a score of boxes being loaded onto the bus. He especially loved books on Hollywood glamour from the 1930s, richly illustrated children’s books, and coffee-table books on photography. Michael would usually hole up in the rear of the bus, while the others spent their time together in front. I also preferred the quiet at the back, and I would sit down with him while he was engrossed in a book of Hollywood glamour photographs from the 1930s. Looking at a particularly striking photo, he would say, “This is magic. They don’t make photos like this anymore.” He studied the pose, eyes, make-up, and expression - everything that went into a great glamour photo.

Michael also loved books that showed children from around the world. One day on the bus I remember him saying “I wish I could write a book about the children of the world. I could go to every country and show how everyone on earth is beautiful. I want to go to India and show the poverty and suffering of the children there, and maybe I could help improve the situation. Africa, too, where there is so much starvation and disease. Todd, would you want to do that with me?” I was stunned, both because I wondered how Michael would ever find the time and also that he wanted me to be the photographer. I suggested that he take a look at the photographs of Lewis Hine, the influential photojournalist whose work helped spur the introduction of child labor laws in the early twentieth century.”

"When Michael and I leafed through photography books on the tour bus, he would point out images he especially liked. He particularly loved the light that bathed the faces of the stars in classic Hollywood portraits. "This light is magic," he'd say in a whisper. "This picture is magic. Look at her eyes. They are so innocent and beautiful. Todd, I want you to photograph me like this." He also told me he wanted to be photographed in expressions similar to those in the photographs of children laboring in factories taken by Lewis Hine in the early 20th century, the subject of another book we had looked at on the bus."

"When he spoke of books, though, he tended to refer to picture books. He lived in a world of images."

Ray Newton:

About an hour later we picked up the professional photographer who was coming with us to radio. The photographer gets in the front seat of the limo says hello and then starts to assemble his camera. Once his camera is assembled he points it at me and Michael in the back seat of the limo. I instruct him not to shoot us so Michael can relax. Looking back, that would be a cool photo to have now but I was looking out for Michael's well-being. Michael sees the camera and starts this deep photography discussion. I was in the discussion for about a minute then it got so deep that I just dropped out and that's when the photographer looked at me and I looked at him with the looks saying check this out - Michael Jackson is knee deep in photography discourse. I asked Michael if he was a photographer and he said "No, I just like photography!!!".

My guess is that wherever Michael was living at any given time he was privately photographing nature and things in his house because one couldn't know what he knew from just listening to photographers. But some people just know things, and this is MJ we are talking about - so who knows!!!

So Michael continues engaging in this very deep photography conversation with the photographer where he mentions something that the photographer said he needed to look into further. This went on for about 5 minutes, and the only thing that stopped that topic was that the photographer said something that Michael didn't know and Michael got quiet.

Let me translate how deep Michael's photography discussion was: imagine if someone says in the middle of a general conversation - pataflaflas swiss 6 accented parafliddle lesson 25 around the set groove. You would not only have to be a drummer but a drummer with not just a knowledge of rudiments but an advanced knowledge of rudiments that one can apply and play around the drumset and make them groove to know what that person was talking about.

http://vater.com/vaternews/post/Vater-Artist-Ray-Newton-and-"Off-The-Wall".aspx

 

[MJresearcher]

Think about it this way: after two big searches, set apart by 10 years, two books from 10-12 years before were the evidence they were still forced to go on about. Pedophiles do not operate like that. Pedophilia is an obsessive disorder. If MJ's interest in those books had been sexual he should have had a great number of such material (and worse) both in 1993 and in 2005. He did not. Instead the prosecution in 2005 was still forced to make two art books from the 1993 search the crown jewel of their case. LOL.

It's very telling when they have to use 10 year old "evidence" that isn't porn and isn't evidence of anything in reality. Talk about grasping at straws!

I remember that during the trial once Diane Dimond too dangled these two books on TV and she said something along the lines that they would not be alarming if it was found in the context of a collection of books for example of someone who is generally interested in art photography. She forgot to add that THAT'S EXCATLY the context they were found in! LOL.

LOL!!! that's so typical of Diane Dimond. Wouldn't you just love to put her into a room and make her watch and listen to all the the things she got wrong about this on repeat until she goes completely insane? (It wouldn't take long, I think she's nearly there already )

I'll have to go off to sleep now, I've been on the computer all day reading about "evidence" and some crap on a digital Spy website about some of the books we've been talking about here. The people there didn't know what they were on about and there were a number of fans arguing back at them but sometimes I still end up feeling a bit flat after reading stuff like that sometimes. I knew that was going to happen but I read it anyway. Why do I do that?! I'll see you all tomorrow when my brain has returned to normal function and when I can articulate what I'm trying to say properly and in a way that makes sense lol. Goodnight

 

[HIStory]

I'm yet to see a hater website where the totality of these cases are presented. No surprise there because telling more about the accusers and how their claims emerged and how they fared in court would significantly weaken their cases. Instead haters' usual talking points are:

- the two art books from 1993 and that never seen, never presented supposed Spence photo
- the settlement supposedly being a sign of guilt
- Jordan's description supposedly matching
- MJ sharing bed with kids supposedly being a sure sign of molestation happening
- MJ supposedly matching the pedophile profile to a T

If someone trying to get a clue about what happened in this allegations went to a hater website would come away thinking that these points were the Alfa and the Omega of these cases and nothing else happened and was ever discussed. They will not find information about the accusers and how their accusations emerged, what they did and said in court (or outside of court) etc. They will just not get any real picture of what happened in these cases other than some carefully cherry-picked points supported with fallacious or simply untrue arguments.

Just notice how no hater will ever talk about anything else than one of the above mentioned points! A red herring like someone taking upon himself to play armchair amateur psychoanalyst to determine whether MJ fitted the so called pedophile profile (be not surprised that of course a hater website will find that he did, LOL) won't replace a real representation of the case. But a lot of people can get fooled by that, because many people just do not know how to tell apart a sound argument from a fallacious one.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

So Michael was smart enough to lock these books but stupid enough to give the key to the mother of one of his "victims"?

Lol... We should make a list of things haters say Michael was smart enough to hide and then horribly stupid to expose. There are just so many of these.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Thanks a lot for all this, i replied to the guy in the comments and we'll see what he says. But like someone here said...even if that particular person doesn't care or believes this, there's always someone who reads it and it will enlighten him/her and hopefully make him/her do research of their own or simply think differently, in a good way about Mike. Even if it's just one person....always a good thing!

It's just so mindblowing (in a bad way) how much lies are being spread as if these are facts. Like the book from Aphrodite Jones, it really was/is a conspiracy. It's sickening. And still plenty of people doubt Michael or flat out believe all the crap. A nude photo of a young friend of his would have been bombshell evidence for the prosecution, plus i am sure Spence would not have spoken fondly of MJ in the 2003 case. And to my knowledge, Spence never turned against MJ.

 

[HIStory]

A nude photo of a young friend of his would have been bombshell evidence for the prosecution

Exactly. And that is the answer in case this person answers that the supposed Spence photo was not introduced because testimony about Spence was not allowed. The reason why it was not allowed was exactly because the prosecution only offered testimony about his supposed "grooming" - ie. Jolie Levine and Mary Coller saying that MJ bought him gifts. Nothing else was offered about Spence and exactly on this basis testimony about him was not allowed. A nude photo of him found in MJ's possession of course would have changed everything - that alone would have been reason to allow testimony about him. Yet, no such photo got introduced by the prosecution.

I wonder if they put that claim in that motion just to get it out to the media for PR reasons or maybe they were still after alleged "victims" and tried to pressure and scare Spence into turning on MJ with that? Who knows? But fact is no such photo was ever shown by the prosecution. Mez was asked about this photo on one of the King Jordan Radio programs and he too said that he has never seen any such photo. So apparently it wasn't even shown in a private session among lawyers or anything.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Yeah i definitely believe it was just said to get it out to the media, demolish MJ's reputation even more. Yesterday i saw some tweets from i believe someone called Stacy Brown, he's a journalist i believe. He said he did not believe Wade Robson, but that there were gonna be many more accusers soon. These were old tweets, i think from earlier this year, but to my knowledge nothing ever came from that. Even after his death they just can't let him be. What is the update on the whole Robson thing anyway? Is it finally gone?

 

[HIStory]

Yeah i definitely believe it was just said to get it out to the media, demolish MJ's reputation even more. Yesterday i saw some tweets from i believe someone called Stacy Brown, he's a journalist i believe. He said he did not believe Wade Robson, but that there were gonna be many more accusers soon. These were old tweets, i think from earlier this year, but to my knowledge nothing ever came from that. Even after his death they just can't let him be. What is the update on the whole Robson thing anyway? Is it finally gone?

Stacy Brown is a hater and Diane Dimond's BFF. He always makes such tweets to scare the s**t out of MJ fans. It's the best to ignore him. The Robson case is discussed in this thread: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...aim-of-sexual-abuse-against-MJ-Estate/page627

Last move was that he had to file an amended lawsuit to make claims about MJ's Companies. In short that's because, to be able to sue them, he said that MJ's companies are somehow responsible for his abuse but never said why. The Judge ordered him to make a cause of action - ie. make conrete allegations about why he thinks the companies are responsible. He had a deadline to file the amended complaint by December 16, but no news about that yet. You will find more in the proper thread.

 

[PopOfKing]

Unfortunately haters took over Wikipedia. Haters are a lot more active in spreading their versions of MJ than fans are.

Sheesh! What a sad existence they have

 

[MJresearcher]

I'm yet to see a hater website where the totality of these cases are presented. No surprise there because telling more about the accusers and how their claims emerged and how they fared in court would significantly weaken their cases.

Exactly, and I think it's very telling that they leave out so many details, sites like VM and others link whole documents and go through every aspect of these cases and don't leave things out. The fact that haters have to cherry pick things and leave out so many details is telling. They try to insist that the details left out don't weaken their case but if that were true then why not include that information on their sites instead of leaving it out and trying to hide it? They accuse fans of all the behaviour they show in spades.

 

[barbee0715]

Sheesh! What a sad existence they have

You know, I don't think they really believe Michael is a pedophile. If they were child abuse activists, they would move on.

I think they're just the kind of people that like to write this kind of stuff everywhere to get fans crazy mad.

 

[PopOfKing]

You know, I don't think they really believe Michael is a pedophile. If they were child abuse activists, they would move on.

I think they're just the kind of people that like to write this kind of stuff everywhere to get fans crazy mad.

I think you're right. Some just live to be jerks. Especially on the 'Net!

 

[MJresearcher]

You know, I don't think they really believe Michael is a pedophile. If they were child abuse activists, they would move on.

I think they're just the kind of people that like to write this kind of stuff everywhere to get fans crazy mad.

Sometimes it's hard to tell with people like this. Sure, if these are people who like to troll and don't believe what they're saying they'd have a blast annoying fans but harassing people like Brett Barnes and other people who knew MJ on twitter and having a website dedicated to garbage about MJ is going pretty far for trolling. I certainly suspect some mental health issues may be in the mix somewhere though, they spend way too much time doing this. It's sad all around really.

 

[HIStory]

Sometimes it's hard to tell with people like this. Sure, if these are people who like to troll and don't believe what they're saying they'd have a blast annoying fans but harassing people like Brett Barnes and other people who knew MJ on twitter and having a website dedicated to garbage about MJ is going pretty far for trolling. I certainly suspect some mental health issues may be in the mix somewhere though, they spend way too much time doing this. It's sad all around really.

Some good articles about trolling. People who like to troll online do seem to have some kind of mental illness:

http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...orld-of-trolling/story-fndo4dzn-1226283852843

http://americablog.com/2014/02/dark-psychology-internet-trolls.html

Let’s take a look at what the typical Internet troll does.

This is based on the above paper, plus some previous work by Buckels, et al., and other researchers. The troll decides to post. He selects a site and a topic. These are often chosen based on his belief system. For example, someone who is strongly religious may troll on atheist sites. Or, sometimes, the troll may strike in a more random manner while reading an blog, for example — some topic or comment may catch his eye and he’ll post.

His objects are to hurt people and attract attention to himself. He may post something wildly inflammatory to the other comments on the site or in direct opposition to the theme of the article. It may be a logically structured and well-written post or just a string of obscenities. Whatever he chooses, he gets some gratification just from posting, knowing that people will be hurt and upset by his post. But he gets more gratification when he gets a reply. Now he knows that someone is upset. This is a victory. Some trolls will then just sit back and watch other comments get posted by readers or authors whom he has enraged. Other trolls, will continue to post, sometimes hundreds of posts on the same thread, to further incite the readers into more replies. The more replies, the more criticisms and denunciations, the more gratification he gets.

That's why I do not like to engage with haters. It just feeds the trolls. The best way to handle trolls and bullies is to ignore them. But yeah, it can be a dilemma too, because while you do not want to feed the troll, sometimes you feel the need to shoot down the lies they put out there - not because you think you can change the troll's mind (they do not care about the truth anyway) but for people who may go to a page unsuspecting and may believe what the troll says if they see no answer to it.

I think these MJ haters have more than one type of people. Their opinion leaders (the person who does the MJfacts website, the person who runs the Waderobsonsallies FB/Twitter group and Desiree who runs that horrible blog) all seem to have some kind of obsessive mental illness.

The person who is behind MJfacts is somewhat mysterious. Apparently it's a British woman, some think she's Australian, but she goes great lengths to hide her identity (by using proxies to pretend like she is from another country etc.) There is an excellent article about the history on that site on the Allforlove blog. Unfortunately we are not allowed to give links to fan blogs on this forum any more, but if you want to read it go to that blog and look for the post on August 24, 2014. As you will see the person behind that site is nothing but a plain ol' hater and when she started her site it was first called "***** Facts". Then she kind of wisened up and realized that being such a blatant hater and using that kind of language is counter-productive, people will just see her for what she truly is: an MJ hater with an agenda. So she changed her tone and started to pretend to be more "impartial" and "rational" (of course, she is neither) and changed the title of her website as well. The owner of this site had a well documented incident with Charles Thomson where Thomson brought a legal suit against the site and managed to get it removed from it original host server Yola. This was because the owner of the site sent out e-mails impersonating Thomson. Then the site relocated and she had the nerve to present herself as a "victim" of the "harassment" of MJ fans...

One has to wonder if these people truly think they are fighting for the truth and for justice then why do they need to constantly rely on such underhanded tactics: impersonating people, harassing people online (for example Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman, Lisa Marie Presley - whose Twitter even got hacked and someone put a link to the MJfacts website on it, sending bullying posts and porn to MJ's children on Twitter etc.)
Fighting for "truth" with lies? Fighting for supposed child abuse "victims" by abusing children? How does that work? That shows you right there that this has nothing to do with alleged "victims" and the truth. They are doing it out of some kind of obsessive hatred for MJ and the "fun" of bullying and trolling.

Desiree IMO has severe narcissistic personality disorder - I'm pretty sure of that by just reading the way she writes, making constant references to her supposed "intellectual superiority" etc. Even the title of her blog is very telling about that. She actually started her obsession with MJ as a "new fan" right after he died. There are old posts out there by her defending MJ against the allegations on various comment sections. But she must have realized after a while that she can get more attention, more reaction and more "online fame" if she is on the other side. She's given different explanations to different people about why she turned - which tells us that she is not honest about it. I remember that the story I read from her was that she got convinced of MJ’s guilt by a tabloid article she read in which one of MJ’s doctors was quoted as saying that in the early 2000s MJ asked him to give him medicine which would suppress his “desire for young boys”. The story was just ridiculous on so many levels (there is no medicine specially designed to supress sexual desire for young boys – there is only medicine that generally supresses any type of sexual desire and libido). There is no serious researcher and fan who would be swayed by such an uncorroborated and clearly BS tabloid story, so to claim this as her reason to turn is just BS. She gave a totally different story about the reason of her turning to others. So again it just shows she's lying. IMO she simply realized that being a hater gives her more attention than just being one of the fans.

And the Waderobsonalley guy, Mike Parr, claims to have been sexually abused as a child himself. Maybe it's true - that would be an explanation for his instant, blind bias for Robson, but thing is that these haters lie so much that I have a hard time trusting anything they say. It's also possible that he's just posing as a survivor of sex abuse because he thinks that gives him somehow more credibility in these issues. Who knows? On his FB this guy says he is a gay man. His brother seems to be in some religious cult being big about fighting abortion. I don't know what their stance on homosexuality is, but usually anti-abortion churches are also heavily anti-gay. So who knows what kind of sad dynamics are going on in their family which make Mike's life miserable? And somehow he uses this obsessed hating on MJ and supporting of Robson as some kind of outlet for that instead of facing his own issues? Who knows?

And I think most of the people who follow these guys are just plain ol' trolls and cyberbullies. It's very rare that any of them shows interest in any other child abuse case (or if they do, only to try to somehow link it to MJ) - so for most of them it's not about that.

 

[MJresearcher]

There is an excellent article about the history on that site on the Allforlove blog.

I read that a while ago, I remember visiting that site when it still had the "whacko" name in it. They were definitely a much more easily recognizable hater's site back then. These days it could be a little harder for unsuspecting people to know who or what they really are. Where they fall down is that they just can't help themselves when it comes to harassing people, they really show their true colours then!

The owner of this site had a well documented incident with Charles Thomson where Thomson brought a legal suit against the site and managed to get it removed from it original host server Yola. This was because the owner of the site sent out e-mails impersonating Thomson. Then the site relocated and she had the nerve to present herself as a "victim" of the "harassment" of MJ fans...

I vaguely remember reading on VM about that site getting taken down and about Charles Thompson. That whole thing had turned into a mess since some of the fans had fallen for the hacking. That was not fun at all. Thomson was getting a lot of attention at the time about MJ articles so I'm guessing that's why he was targeted.

One has to wonder if these people truly think they are fighting for the truth and for justice then why do they need to constantly rely on such underhanded tactics: impersonating people, harassing people online (for example Brett Barnes, Corey Feldman, Lisa Marie Presley - whose Twitter even got hacked and someone put a link to the MJfacts website on it, sending bullying posts and porn to MJ's children on Twitter etc.)

I just went and looked at Lisa Marie's twitter, I don't think I knew about her getting hacked, I don't remember hearing about it but I don't get on twitter much. I was on there more when Paris was active on there, I was mainly on there to read what she was saying and then when things went south with her mental health and she stopped tweeting I didn't get on twitter at all for many months. I remember people sending bullying tweets to Paris and Prince, and I remember seeing people posting links to them that included a picture of MJ in the morgue but I didn't know they'd sent them porn. So much for being advocates for abused children, they're abusing children! Very ironic that they constantly complain about MJ but then go and send things like porn to his underage children! HYPOCRITES!!! Did anyone manage to get screenshots of what was sent to the kids?

Desiree IMO has severe narcissistic personality disorder - I'm pretty sure of that by just reading the way she writes, making constant references to her supposed "intellectual superiority" etc. Even the title of her blog is very telling about that. She actually started her obsession with MJ as a "new fan" right after he died. There are old posts out there by her defending MJ against the allegations on various comment sections. But she must have realized after a while that she can get more attention, more reaction and more "online fame" if she is on the other side. She's given different explanations to different people about why she turned - which tells us that she is not honest about it. I remember that the story I read from her was that she got convinced of MJ’s guilt by a tabloid article she read in which one of MJ’s doctors was quoted as saying that in the early 2000s MJ asked him to give him medicine which would suppress his “desire for young boys”. The story was just ridiculous on so many levels (there is no medicine specially designed to supress sexual desire for young boys – there is only medicine that generally supresses any type of sexual desire and libido). There is no serious researcher and fan who would be swayed by such an uncorroborated and clearly BS tabloid story, so to claim this as her reason to turn is just BS. She gave a totally different story about the reason of her turning to others. So again it just shows she's lying. IMO she simply realized that being a hater gives her more attention than just being one of the fans.

Ah yes, Desiree. That one is crazy triple dipped in psycho. I was reading the VM blog a lot when they were having exchanges with Desiree, I think she (if they even are female, who knows?) even claimed at one point that the mjfacts site was hers. Desiree was always claiming that VM was a joke and that she wasn't worried about it but she sure spent a lot of time arguing with them for someone who supposedly didn't see them as a threat.

And the Waderobsonalley guy, Mike Parr, claims to have been sexually abused as a child himself. Maybe it's true - that would be an explanation for his instant, blind bias for Robson, but thing is that these haters lie so much that I have a hard time trusting anything they say. It's also possible that he's just posing as a survivor of sex abuse because he thinks that gives him somehow more credibility in these issues. Who knows? On his FB this guy says he is a gay man. His brother seems to be in some religious cult being big about fighting abortion. I don't know what their stance on homosexuality is, but usually anti-abortion churches are also heavily anti-gay. So who knows what kind of sad dynamics are going on in their family which make Mike's life miserable? And somehow he uses this obsessed hating on MJ and supporting of Robson as some kind of outlet for that instead of facing his own issues? Who knows?

It is hard to tell with him and the others, I have a question mark over everything they say too, these people seem to go to any measures they can to convince people of their premise about MJ. Despite their lies and other behaviour I think it's still possible that they believe that MJ was an abuser, I've seen people who believe in certain things tell lies in an attempt to get other people believing the same things they do. Lying doesn't help them but people can do some pretty desperate and stupid things when they want more people on their side. For example, some people who think evolution isn't real say things about it that aren't true and they know it isn't, they just want people to agree with them and will do anything to make that happen, including trying to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them and being abusive towards anyone they're debating with about it. I see it happen with politics too, lies are told about the opposition to get people on their side.

I hope that these MJ haters really are just trolls and that they don't really believe what they claim to. People can be very strange creatures sometimes and people's behaviour isn't always logical or consistent with what they're doing which drives me nuts. I wonder if these people troll anywhere else about different subjects or if it's just MJ? From what I've seen of trolls they usually don't always stick to one subject but I guess it depends on the individual. They've been at this for years, I would expect trolls to get tired of that game a long time ago and move on which is one of the things that makes me wonder if they really believe that MJ was an abuser. On the MJ facebook fan page we had trolls galore, some would stick around for only a few days, some for a few weeks but they'd eventually get bored and move on. These people aren't like that, I guess I just have trouble believing that trolling is their only motivation for doing this, they put so much time and effort into doing it, I can't say that I've ever seen any troll do that before. Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't happen though.

David Thorne has a website where he shows his troll exchanges, they're about all different subjects but he makes it pretty obvious that he's trolling and some of it is actually funny. He seems to be a different kind of troll though, he's not so much about about insulting people, he just messed with them.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

They hacked Lisa's Twitter and posted things to support Wade Robson last year. It was pretty obvious... The tweets were removed and Lisa said her Twitter was hacked and that it wasn't her who wrote those things...

 

[MJresearcher]

I saw a tweet from her saying she'd been hacked when I went on her page earlier today, and another tweet where she said tat Karen Faye made her aware of what happened. That's a really desperate and despicable act but I can't say that it surprises me, nothing these people do surprises me anymore.

 

[HIStory]

It is hard to tell with him and the others, I have a question mark over everything they say too, these people seem to go to any measures they can to convince people of their premise about MJ. Despite their lies and other behaviour I think it's still possible that they believe that MJ was an abuser

Like it was said in that article about trolls:

The troll decides to post. He selects a site and a topic. These are often chosen based on his belief system.

That he may believe in what he says does not mean a person cannot be a troll. It all depends on how he writes and what he writes and how he acts. These people obviously get a kick out of hurting other people (MJ's fans, friends and family etc.), harassing people online, writing and spreading awful slander and those are characteristics of trolling and cyberbullying. I do not doubt that they probably convinced themselves about the "truth" of their cause, but that conviction is based on a will to believe those things, not on a genuine search for truth. If they were genuine in their research they would not lie, deceive and manipulate. In short, while they may believe MJ was a child molester, but the truth value of that claim is never a priority to them. The priority is how they can hurt people and MJ's memory with that claim.

BTW, in this case I think there is also an element of a power trip in it. These people, who are probably very insignificant, unsuccessful, miserable people in real life (like trolls usually are), feel "power" in having the means to cause harm to the reputation of a world famous megastar and a career that was built with hard work for 40 years. And they also feel "power" in having the ability to get under the skin of some MJ fans. (That's why we should not let them.)

I hope that these MJ haters really are just trolls and that they don't really believe what they claim to.

It doesn't really matter if they do or not. Most of them probably do and some do not care either way, but whether they truly hold those beliefs or not is not how you seperate trolls from not trolls as I said above.

I wonder if these people troll anywhere else about different subjects or if it's just MJ?

I know Desiree trolled other forums and made racist comments about white people (she's a black woman) - saying that white people are inclined to pedophila, among others...

From what I've seen of trolls they usually don't always stick to one subject but I guess it depends on the individual. They've been at this for years, I would expect trolls to get tired of that game a long time ago and move on which is one of the things that makes me wonder if they really believe that MJ was an abuser.
On the MJ facebook fan page we had trolls galore, some would stick around for only a few days, some for a few weeks but they'd eventually get bored and move on. These people aren't like that, I guess I just have trouble believing that trolling is their only motivation for doing this, they put so much time and effort into doing it, I can't say that I've ever seen any troll do that before. Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't happen though.

Again, a troll may very well believe in what he says - that does not mean he is not a troll. It's the way he says it and what else he does. And I also do not know what the length of the obsession with a topic has to do with the definition of a troll. If anything, the longer the obsession is, the more unhealthy the troll is IMO. IMO these people have a sick obsession with MJ and that's why they stick to this one topic. If MJ had not existed they would probably find another topic to obsess over, because these are obsessive personalities, but these trolls and bullies found their niche of trolling in the MJ allegations. It's a dirty enough topic to be able to dwell in dirty stuff and MJ fans are numerous and sensitive enough to give these people some sense of "power" when they can find ways to hurt them.

 

[MJresearcher]

That's one of the reasons why I don't like to show emotion when I'm discussing it online, if they don't get that it's not as fun for them. Their behaviour is very much trolling,I was looking more at what
barbee0715 had said, that maybe they didn't really believe that MJ did anything he was accused of. People can definitely believe something and be a troll at the same time. The part about trolls not being very successful sounds right, given the amount of time they put into their antics it looks like they probably don't have a job and think they're achieving something by doing this. I hope they slip up and get themselves exposed, after all the harassing they've done they deserve to be punished. I'm not holding my breath on that happening though.

 

[MJresearcher]

I hadn't looked at articles about trolls for a while but quite liked this one:

Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists

Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.

Published on September 18, 2014 by Jennifer Golbeck, Ph.D. in Your Online Secrets

In this month's issue of Personality and Individual Differences, a study was published that confirms what we all suspected: Internet trolls are horrible people.

Let's start by getting our definitions straight: An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.

What kind of person would do this? Some Canadian researchers decided to find out.

They conducted two online studies with over 1,200 people, giving personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the "Dark Tetrad" of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.

They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite Internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among Internet trolls, see this figure from the paper:

Look at how low the Dark Tetrad scores are for everyone except the trolls! Their scores for all four traits soar on the chart. The relationship between trolling and the Dark Tetrad is so significant that the authors write in their paper:

"... the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists." [emphasis added]

Trolls truly enjoy making you feel bad. To quote the authors once more (because this is a truly quotable article): "Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun ... and the Internet is their playground!"

The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:

These trolls are some truly difficult people.
It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them.

References

Buckels, Erin E., Paul D. Trapnell, and Delroy L. Paulhus. "Trolls just want to have fun." Personality and Individual Differences67 (2014): 97-102.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

 

[metermaid]

The owner of this site had a well documented incident with Charles Thomson where Thomson brought a legal suit against the site and managed to get it removed from it original host server Yola. .

holy ****ing shit i had no idea about this! thanks respect77. this mjfact/desiree thing...i still have a thousand questions about it. it's all so creepy. is there a thread on mjjc about that you know of?

ridiculous that we can't post the link here but i digress.

was it desiree's blog that said PPB are michael's biological children but he had them "designed" to look "Caucasian" in the womb? i came across this blog years ago and it was just absurdity after absurdity.

 

[HIStory]

^ Actually I would not be surprised if Desiree had something to do with at least Safechuck's allegations. These haters bombard with their BS any guy who was around with MJ and who they can find on the Internet trying to make them turn. We know all about what they do to Brett Barnes because it's on Twitter and in plain sight, but Desiree also found the e-mail address of Safechuck's wife back in 2011 and she sent her e-mails and links to her blog... This would explain why Safechuck's allegations look like a best of collection of 20 years of tabloid crap. Interesting that Safechuck even tries to drag Brett into it when he says in his lawsuit:

When Safechuck hit puberty at 12 years old, Jackson began "grooming him for separation [that] spanned several months" and focusing his attention on a younger boy named Brett, Safechuck claims. Eventually, Jackson stopped sexually abusing Safechuck but continued supporting him financially and put him in touch with industry people to guide his career, he adds.

You know how haters, especially Desiree, are obsessed with Brett...

Now, I think the real trigger for Safechuck to turn on MJ was seeing Wade's lucrative lawsuit, but I think a lot of his ammunition and claims were taken from hater websites.

 

[MJresearcher]

Desiree also found the e-mail address of Safechuck's wife back in 2011 and she sent her e-mails and links to her blog...

This really shows the desperation doesn't it? It's also really sick, some of the parents of people who had been around MJ may have already wondered about their kids if they believed claims against MJ and then this lowlife comes in and starts playing on fears. Sounds like a sociopath to me. I wonder if they were offered anything by Desiree? This would be so much easier if we knew who this psycho was. Did Desiree publish any screenshots or anything else on her blog about this contact with Safechuck's mother? I've been on there a few times but don't stick around long, I can't stomach the crap that's on there, it's like dipping your eyes into sewage.

 

[HIStory]

This really shows the desperation doesn't it? It's also really sick, some of the parents of people who had been around MJ may have already wondered about their kids if they believed claims against MJ and then this lowlife comes in and starts playing on fears. Sounds like a sociopath to me. I wonder if they were offered anything by Desiree? This would be so much easier if we knew who this psycho was. Did Desiree publish any screenshots or anything else on her blog about this contact with Safechuck's mother? I've been on there a few times but don't stick around long, I can't stomach the crap that's on there, it's like dipping your eyes into sewage.

I don't know, I do not go to her blog either, but I have seen fans who follow her mention this. I know she was obsessed with proving Mesereau wrong when he said in court in 2005 that Safechuck married at Neverland. Actually, in this Desiree was right, Safechuck did not marry at Neverland, but this was just an honest mistake by Mez, because Jonathan Spence did marry at Neverland and probably he just mistook the two.

A fan talked to Spence's mother a couple of years ago and she mentioned the marriage at Neverland. From The Turning The Table On the Chandler Allegations blog:

Spence
Marion Spence and her son Jonathan became family friends in the mid-80’s. Meeting the Jackson’s, “when my son would play baseball and he [Michael] used to be there with some of his family at the baseball game. Because his brothers children would be playing baseball at the same time. So we got to know them very well and got to know Michael very well,” Marion said.
Elaborating further Marion stated, “We used to go to Havenhurst– to the family house on Havenhurst and Latoya would be there and Janet would be there and Tito, his brother, had a house up in Big Bear and we were invited up there for a weekend. The whole family was nice with us. Very, very nice –his mother would call and say Hi and how’s everything and when are we going to see Jonathan.”
Marion would tell me that although they never toured with the superstar, she and her son did spend a considerable amount of time with Michael, “We went to concerts, we went to Neverland which was wonderful –with Michael. He would send a car for us and we would spend the day together by the pool. Have dinner there in the evening and it was just wonderful. It was just like being in a hotel. We would stay in one of his houses on the estate. He was just a very generous, kind, loving person. I absolutely adored him everybody, I mean I don’t know anybody who didn’t. He was just very nice and I would never say anything wrong about Michael because there just isn’t anything to say. His mother was very nice. His family was very nice to us.”
“Jonathon used to go to Elizabeth’s [Taylor] house with Michael. And Sophia Loren’s house–she lived out here in West Lake or Calabasas and Michael went and they played with her two sons and she would make them spaghetti.” Michael would stop by the Spence family home to visit. Bringing along his chimpanzee Bubbles. “I have photographs of him giving him his banana up in the driveway. When I knew Bubbles he was very playful—Michael loved his animals,” Marion said.

Clearly irritated that anyone would suggest wrongdoing on Michael’s part Marion said, “Michael had a load of kids sleeping in his bed all at the same time. There wasn’t anything funny going on there. He just liked to be around kids and toys. Michael was such a good person. He wouldn’t hurt a fly or anybody or anything. Michael was very kind hearted. The media harps on the tragic because that’s what people want to hear. They’re not interested on the good things too much. Anything that’s a scandal, they’re into it, but really they got the wrong person when they thought about Michael.” Her family did indeed have a long-term friendship with the superstar, confirmed that her son Jonathan was married at Neverland years later.

This would be so much easier if we knew who this psycho was.

Well we know who she is. Although some fans have their doubts whether she is telling the truth about her identity, but IMO more or less she does. She is a black woman in her early 20s from Las Vegas. I think that is true. Whether she is truly a university student is doubtful (many people pointed out that if she was truly a university student she would not have this much time on her hand for this BS). She is clearly a highly psychotic personality. She is even more psycho in private e-mails. I have seen some she wrote to certain people. Clearly a sick person - I mean, certifiable. Supposely she has a twin sister Jessica who also seems to be mentally ill, but it kind of looks like Desiree is the leader between them and Jessica is like a faithful servant, always doing and thinking whatever Desiree tells her to. Certainly seems to be some psychologically interesting dynamics between them. I actually had my doubts about whether Jessica truly exists or is just a product of Desiree's split personality, but fans who did more research in her say she is real. Actually, Jessica (whether real or Desiree's alterego) too seems to share some of Desiree's creepy ideas. I have seen posts by her saying creepy things about pedophilia - I'm telling you Victor Guiterrez would be proud of her...

Like I said I do not go to her blog, supporting it with clicks, but last time I read on the Allforlove blog that it's been recently taken down. I don't know if it's still down, but what I was told is that apparently someone filed a suit against her and there was a court order against her blog and that's why it disappeared. I wonder who is behind it. (I doubt it's the Estate because there are no laws against the defamation of dead people, so I assume it must have been someone else on some other basis. Brett Barnes, for example would have a good case against her.)

 

[MJresearcher]

Well we know who she is. Although some fans have their doubts whether she is telling the truth about her identity, but IMO more or less she does. She is a black woman in her early 20s from Las Vegas. I think that is true. Whether she is truly a university student is doubtful (many people pointed out that if she was truly a university student she would not have this much time on her hand for this BS).

I remember VM talking about her claiming to be a black woman in her 20's and I also very much doubt she was in University at least at the time she claimed for the same reason. David Edwards posted screenshots from emails she sent him and she's very malicious and insulting which tells me that she's very emotionally invested in this. Knowing her full real name would be good, once you have a name there's so much you can find out about a person just through public sources.

Like I said I do not go to her blog, supporting it with clicks, but last time I read on the Allforlove blog that it's been recently taken down. I don't know if it's still down, but what I was told is that apparently someone filed a suit against her and there was a court order against her blog and that's why it disappeared. I wonder who is behind it. (I doubt it's the Estate because there are no laws against the defamation of dead people, so I assume it must have been someone else on some other basis. Brett Barnes, for example would have a good case against her.)

That wouldn't surprise me, I was waiting for something like that to happen. People like to think they can say anything they like on the internet and get away with it but the law applies everywhere. People lose their jobs because of things they post on their facebook accounts, this happened to a friend of mine who put up a rant when she was angry. A lot of haters seem obsessed with Brett Barnes, we can probably thank Gutierrez for that. VM had some of the things on their blog that were in his book, he make me feel ill. Why Gutierrez was never investigated is beyond me.

 

[HIStory]

Knowing her full real name would be good, once you have a name there's so much you can find out about a person just through public sources.

Her name is Desiree Hill.

Why Gutierrez was never investigated is beyond me.

Well, Michael sued him, won and what did he achieve with that? Guiterrez never paid the $2.7 million to Michael he was ordered to pay and the media still acted as if he was a credible source on MJ. Nothing changed. That's why MJ did not sue more often, I guess. Apparently suing a journalist and even winning a lawsuit against a journalist achieves nothing. They will keep slandering you.

 

[MJresearcher]

Her name is Desiree Hill.

Ah, thank you very much!

Well, Michael sued him, won and what did he achieve with that? Guiterrez never paid the $2.7 million to Michael he was ordered to pay and the media still acted as if he was a credible source on MJ. Nothing changed. That's why MJ did not sue more often, I guess. Apparently suing a journalist and even winning a lawsuit against a journalist achieves nothing. They will keep slandering you.

It's really disgusting that things turned out that way, haters often complain that MJ didn't sue people and try to use it as "proof" that those things must have been true but if he wanted to sue everyone who printed anything false he would have been in court for the rest of his life and wouldn't have time for much else which would be depressing. As we've seen with Wade's lawsuit these things can drag on for a long time and if the end result is that you win the lawsuit but get nothing out of it after all that time and effort it's very understandable that he didn't do it more often.

 

[barbee0715]

Her name is Desiree Hill.



Well, Michael sued him, won and what did he achieve with that? Guiterrez never paid the $2.7 million to Michael he was ordered to pay and the media still acted as if he was a credible source on MJ. Nothing changed. That's why MJ did not sue more often, I guess. Apparently suing a journalist and even winning a lawsuit against a journalist achieves nothing. They will keep slandering you.

It still seems to me that since Guiterrez never paid any money, he still owes it to the Estate? And they could stop him from making any money from any kind of appearances because he owes it to them (in the same way the Goldmans did OJ).

 

[barbee0715]

duplicate

 

[HIStory]

It still seems to me that since Guiterrez never paid any money, he still owes it to the Estate? And they could stop him from making any money from any kind of appearances because he owes it to them (in the same way the Goldmans did OJ).

I have no idea how that works.

BTW, here is the verdict if anyone is interested.

Actually it says it bears an interest rate of 10% until paid. How much money that would be by now? (ETA: If my calculation is right it would be almost 12.5 million by now...)

I think Guiterrez filed for bankruptcy and so I think that saved him from having to pay.