Latest on MJJC

What are the best books about Michael Jackson?

I have only read Michael Jackson: King of Pop: 1958-2009 by Emily Herbert. I thought it was great.
 
InvincibleTal said:
I thought it had something to do with June's testimony, but the Sullivan book could be the reason. I didn't read his book so I didn't realize it might have been her source.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, now I remember she said she thought so because of what June claimed about MJ crying to be allowed to share bed with Jordan. It does not make sense to me tough, because that's just one side of the story and in her book Jones was pretty critical of June and her testimony so what made her suddenly believable to her? (And in fact the story is contradictory with Jordan's version that he told to Dr. Gardner.)
 
respect77 said:
Oh yeah, now I remember she said she thought so because of what June claimed about MJ crying to be allowed to share bed with Jordan. It does not make sense to me tough, because that's just one side of the story and in her book Jones was pretty critical of June and her testimony so what made her suddenly believable to her? (And in fact the story is contradictory with Jordan's version that he told to Dr. Gardner.)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Her comment made no sense.
 
respect77;4097971 said:
No, I don't think Aphrodite Jones falls into that category. When she wrote her book publishing a book about MJ being innocent was anything but fashionable. In fact, as far as I know she had to self-publish it because no publisher would take a positive book about MJ.

Still, the bashing is not warranted for those who eventually can see the light and are able to change their minds based on facts. For the record, I do not agree with everything Aphrodite Jones said (notably she made some rather ignorant and unfortunate comments about the Chandler case recently), but there are enough people who still talk trash about MJ and the trial, so I am not going to pick on the rare journalist who eventually did make that research (at least about the Arvizo case) and was honest enough to change her mind about that when she saw the facts and even tried to do something to correct her former wrongs (by writing a book). I wish there were more of such journalists because whatever mistakes Aphrodite has made, she was still more genuine and dilligent in her presentation of the 2005 trial than most other journalists.
Click to expand...

Aphrodite was a part of that media “cottage industry” that would have profited a great deal from a guilty verdict. No one can tell for sure the real reason(s) for her “sudden” change of policy. Much to her surprise, the verdict was “non-guilty” & she decided then to follow the winning part. For me, this looks far more unethical than sticking on the same opinions.
 
mj_frenzy;4098082 said:
Aphrodite was a part of that media “cottage industry” that would have profited a great deal from a guilty verdict. No one can tell for sure the real reason(s) for her “sudden” change of policy. Much to her surprise, the verdict was “non-guilty” & she decided then to follow the winning part.

For me, this looks far more unethical than sticking on the same opinions.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion with that I fully disagree with. Sticking to an uninformed opinion no matter what and rather choosing to remain ignorant about facts is more ethical? Saying I will rather attribute the not guilty verdict to "celebrity justice" just to be able to keep up my uninformed opinion (like most of the media did) than to admit maybe I was wrong is more ethical? How? At least when she heard the not guilty verdicts Aphrodite felt the need to take a look behind them and did not just attribute it to "celebrity justice" like most of her colleagues did. I cannot see how that is "unethical", let alone "more unethical" than putting down the verdicts to "celebrity justice" in a lazy way.

Also winning the case did not mean it was suddenly "in" to be pro-MJ. On the contrary, polls still showed overwhelmingly anti-MJ sentiments in the public and still no publisher would touch a book that said MJ was innocent so Aphrodite had to self-publish. Publishers only wanted negative books about MJ so they approached Mesereau and jury members with offers to turn on MJ. So despite of the not guilty verdicts it still would have been much easier for Aphrodite to write a book that was trashing MJ.

Sometimes I do not understand what some MJ fans really want. I cannot understand it when they do not welcome positive changes of heart and opinions regarding Michael and the allegations instead they feel the need to attack exactly such people because they once held other opinions. What is better for Michael and his legacy? If people change their opinion for the better about him or if they stick to some uninformed opinion refusing to know the facts? How is that more "ethical"? I feel like there is some sort of fanboy elitism behind this attitue in the mould of "you can only be a true MJ fan/supporter if you were that all along". No changes of opinions are allowed. Sorry, but that's just silly. Intelligent people are able to change their opinion when they see evidence to the contrary of their previously held beliefs. A "sticking to your opinion no matter what" stance is neither intelligent or ethical.

ETA: Also, Aprhodite is open about her history in her book. She does not pretend that she always believed him to be innocent. She's very honest about herself in the introduction of her book:

The day Michael Jackson was exonerated, I was asked what I really thought about the verdicts by FOX star Bill O'Reilly. For months, I had been commenting about the trial for FOX News, saying many things against Jackson, leading viewers to believe the pop star was guilty. When O'Reilly pressed me for an answer on the "not guilty" verdicts, I was stammering. O'Reilly wanted a straight answer, and I finally said I thought the jury did the right thing. But part of me was still in shock.As I made one of my last public comments on the case, I realized that I had become one of the media folks who had predetermined the outcome of the trial, wrongly. Many people around me were so sure of Jackson's guilt. Certain reporters had slanted TV and radio coverage to suit the prosecution, and I was one of the people who followed that dangerous trend.
Somehow, I had missed the truth.
When I read the accounts of the NOT GUILTY verdicts in all the newspapers, I felt ashamed to have been part of the media machine that seemed hell-bent on destroying Jackson. After I thought about it for a few hours, I contacted the jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, who talked to me about Jackson, who asserted that Jackson had been a target. The jury foreman said Michael Jackson was truly not guilty of the charges. He felt Jackson had been victimized by the media.

Writing a book about Jackson's innocence never crossed my mind, not during tne trial in Santa Maria. I respected Tom Mesereau as an attorney, and I came to see why the jury voted not guilty on every charge, but I had no intention of revealing my own slanted news coverage. Beyond that, I certainly didn't want to expose any of my media "friends" as being one-sided and unfair.
Click to expand...

It would be different if she tried to sugarcoat her past, but she does not. She does acknowledge that she was caught up in the media frenzy during the trial and she was one of those journalist who first judged before even seeing the evidence.
 
Last edited:
respect77;4098093 said:
That's your opinion with that I fully disagree with. Sticking to an uninformed opinion no matter what and rather choosing to remain ignorant about facts is more ethical? Saying I will rather attribute the not guilty verdict to "celebrity justice" just to be able to keep up my uninformed opinion (like most of the media did) than to admit maybe I was wrong is more ethical? How? At least when she heard the not guilty verdicts Aphrodite felt the need to take a look behind them and did not just attribute it to "celebrity justice" like most of her colleagues did. I cannot see how that is "unethical", let alone "more unethical" than putting down the verdicts to "celebrity justice" in a lazy way.

Also winning the case did not mean it was suddenly "in" to be pro-MJ. On the contrary, polls still showed overwhelmingly anti-MJ sentiments in the public and still no publisher would touch a book that said MJ was innocent so Aphrodite had to self-publish. Publishers only wanted negative books about MJ so they approached Mesereau and jury members with offers to turn on MJ. So despite of the not guilty verdicts it still would have been much easier for Aphrodite to write a book that was trashing MJ.

Sometimes I do not understand what some MJ fans really want. I cannot understand it when they do not welcome positive changes of heart and opinions regarding Michael and the allegations instead they feel the need to attack exactly such people because they once held other opinions. What is better for Michael and his legacy? If people change their opinion for the better about him or if they stick to some uninformed opinion refusing to know the facts? How is that more "ethical"? I feel like there is some sort of fanboy elitism behind this attitue in the mould of "you can only be a true MJ fan/supporter if you were that all along". No changes of opinions are allowed. Sorry, but that's just silly. Intelligent people are able to change their opinion when they see evidence to the contrary of their previously held beliefs. A "sticking to your opinion no matter what" stance is neither intelligent or ethical.

ETA: Also, Aprhodite is open about her history in her book. She does not pretend that she always believed him to be innocent. She's very honest about herself in the introduction of her book:

It would be different if she tried to sugarcoat her past, but she does not. She does acknowledge that she was caught up in the media frenzy during the trial and she was one of those journalist who first judged before even seeing the evidence.
Click to expand...


This my opinion with that, of course, you can fully disagree with.

Also:

1. The evidence (or lack thereof) has been exposed throughout the trial’s days (rather than being exposed on the last day of MJ’s acquittal).

2. Polls are in no way a reliable way of predicting future behavior, especially when they take place in the heat of moment.

3. To change your own opinion does not have to do always with intelligence, particularly in the media/press field.

4. Each reporter/journalist has to be evaluated (or be criticized) separately. I do not understand why MJ fans’ opinions (or generally people’s opinions) have to be categorized regarding such matters.
 
So, despite everything, is Conspiracy one of the best books about the 2005 trial? I'd like to know for research purposes and... I have not read it.
 
*M Poetica: Michael Jackson's Art of Connection and Defiance by Willa Stillwater
*Michael Jackson's Dangerous (33 1/3) by Susan Fast
*Keep Moving: The Michael Jackson Chronicles by Armond White
*Man In The Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson by Joe Vogel
 
Last edited:
mj_frenzy;4098100 said:
1. The evidence (or lack thereof) has been exposed throughout the trial’s days (rather than being exposed on the last day of MJ’s acquittal).
Click to expand...

So? Jones admits that she was caught up in the media frenzy during the trial, she does not look for excuses for that but at least she made that realization and change for the better after the trial which is more than what we can say about most journalists. Better late then never. I personally will criticize those who never make that serious research before judging the case rather than those who are willing to admit their mistakes and change their mind when facing evidence.

2. Polls are in no way a reliable way of predicting future behavior, especially when they take place in the heat of moment.
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with anything said above? Fact is when Jones revaluated her opinion and published her book it was not an "in" thing to be pro-MJ and to write books about MJ's innocence. That's the whole point.

3. To change your own opinion does not have to do always with intelligence, particularly in the media/press field.
Click to expand...

And who said "to change your own opinion always has to do with intelligence"? I never said something like that. What I said was this:

Intelligent people are able to change their opinion when they see evidence to the contrary of their previously held beliefs. A "sticking to your opinion no matter what" stance is neither intelligent or ethical.
Click to expand...


dewey;4098108 said:
So, despite everything, is Conspiracy one of the best books about the 2005 trial? I'd like to know for research purposes and... I have not read it.
Click to expand...

Well, since there aren't really other books about the 2005 trial (or at least I do not know them - but if there are please post them) there's no real competition. I don't say it's perfect and I definitely would have written it differently, but it's OK for those who do not want to read hundreds of pages of trial transcripts and other court documents but want to have a basic idea about the trial. But if you are doing serious research I'd rather recommend to go back to the source documents - ie. trial transcripts, court docs.
 
Last edited:
respect77;4098123 said:
So? Jones admits that she was caught up in the media frenzy during the trial, she does not look for excuses for that but at least she made that realization and change for the better after the trial which is more than what we can say about most journalists. Better late then never. I personally will criticize those who never make that serious research before judging the case rather than those who are willing to admit their mistakes and change their mind when facing evidence.

And what does this have to do with anything said above? Fact is when Jones revaluated her opinion and published her book it was not an "in" thing to be pro-MJ and to write books about MJ's innocence. That's the whole point.

And who said "to change your own opinion always has to do with intelligence"? I never said something like that. What I said was this:
Click to expand...

An experienced reporter/journalist knows the ins & outs of the media system (& how it works) perfectly well. Admitting to be caught up in the media frenzy does not sound credible to say the least.

Also, evidence to the contrary of the previously held beliefs was being exposed each & every one day of the trial. I think, intelligent people realize that rather earlier & not when the trial ends.

MJ’s trial overshadowed that period in a negative way. It is perfectly natural for polls (that probably took place during that period) to show such results. But, this does not mean that in the subsequent period (after his acquittal) people’s opinions would have remained the same.
 
OK, I just listened to Aphrodite's comments about the 1993 case, and I was uncomfortable with her opinion about MJ being "in love" with Jordan Chandler. That said, she also stressed she could not form any objective opinion about that case, because she didn't have enough information to do so. She also said her main cause for uncertainty about the '93 case was witnessing Jordan's mother June during the 2005 trial. Aphrodite described June's behavior as that of "a mother looking the other way", but she didn't give any more context as to what Mrs. Chandler may have been ignoring. I got the impression she was genuinely bothered by even having to think about the first allegations, because her feelings about them contrasted so sharply with her own conclusions about the Arvizo family. She was very firmly seated on the fence, which I feel is appropriate from a journalist lacking information. If and when any more facts come to light about the 1993 case, I'd be surprised if Aphrodite wasn't one of the first to clarify her stance. Nevertheless, I still think "Conspiracy" is one of the best books on the 2005 case, and I'd recommend it to anyone searching for the truth in that regard.
 
Moviefan2k4 said:
She also said her main cause for uncertainty about the '93 case was witnessing Jordan's mother June during the 2005 trial. Aphrodite described June's behavior as that of "a mother looking the other way", but she didn't give any more context as to what Mrs. Chandler may have been ignoring. I got the impression she was genuinely bothered by even having to think about the first allegations, because her feelings about them contrasted so sharply with her own conclusions about the Arvizo family.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that in her book she represents June Chandler as someone who struck her as not credible at all. So now suddenly to suggest she was credible is a change of heart on her part and I cannot see why because there is nothing new that came out about the case or June since which would make her more credible than she was in 2005. It seems to me that maybe she just got flak from colleagues for being too pro-MJ or something and this was her awkward way of trying to show some sort of "unbiased on the fence" attitude.

She was very firmly seated on the fence, which I feel is appropriate from a journalist lacking information.
Click to expand...

The problem is that such a statement is not really an "on the fence" comment. A comment like that suggests Michael was guilty of molesting Jordan Chandler, which is not being on the fence. An on the fence and fair comment would have been: "I have not studied that case enough to comment."

If and when any more facts come to light about the 1993 case, I'd be surprised if Aphrodite wasn't one of the first to clarify her stance.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of information out there about the Chandler case that Aphrodite could have studied before making this ignorant comment. Specifically what she said was that the story that June told about MJ crying and throwing a tantrum in Las Vegas for not allowing him to sleep with Jordan made her feel uncomfortable and made her think that maybe MJ "was in love" with Jordan. But this would suggest that all of a sudden Aphrodite accepts everything that June claimed as true, even though she did not in her book. Why is June suddenly viewed by her as trustworthy? Moreover, if Aphrodite was really so bothered by this story she could have done a little research about it and then she might have discovered that Jordan's version of it in his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner in 1993 was totally different than that of his mother's on the stand in 2005.

June's version was that Michael threw a tantrum and cried to let him sleep in the same bed as Jordan in Las Vegas to which June gave in and she let them sleep together for the first time.

Jordan's version was something very different. His version was that he and Michael watched a horror movie in Vegas and he was scared and he asked Michael to sleep in his room because he was scared. Which Michael allowed. (They did not claim anything sexual happen that night, BTW.) The crying happened AFTER they already had slept in the same bed. The next morning when June confronted Michael about it and Michael felt June did not trust him. That's what the crying was about according to Jordan's own version and not how June represented it on the stand in 2005 where she claimed the crying was about Michael demanding to be able to sleep with Jordan the next night.

Moreover, Mesereau brought more out about that conversation where MJ cried in his cross examination. In turns out the whole discussion revolved around trust and the crying was rather about general trust issues. There was talk about June not being able to trust the men in her life etc. etc.

These things are all out there and Aphrodite could have researched it. Or if she does not care enough to research it she should not have commented this aspect of the case.
 
Well, all told, its very difficult to get an accurate estimation of someone's intent, from just a sentence or two. That's probably another reason she stumbled about addressing it, because she didn't want to present the wrong impression. She openly admitted she doesn't know whether Michael molested Jordan, since she wasn't there and the 1993 case was not her area of expertise. Her main focus with that book was the 2005 case, of which she has repeatedly said she's convinced MJ was innocent. She only addressed the 1993 allegations because the prosecution introduced them.
 
^ Regardless of intent, it's just very irresponsible to make such a serious allegation (MJ being "in love with" Jordan) when she admittedly did not know the facts of that case. If you do not know about a case as a responsible and fair person you just do not comment it instead of making such an ignorant and damaging innuendo about such a serious matter.
 
respect77 said:
^ Regardless of intent, it's just very irresponsible to make such a serious allegation (MJ being "in love with" Jordan) when she admittedly did not know the facts of that case. If you do not know about a case as a responsible and fair person you just do not comment it instead of making such an ignorant and damaging innuendo about such a serious matter.
Click to expand...
Well, she was asked for her honest opinion, and she provided it. If she'd offered it unprompted, different rules would apply.
 
Moviefan2k4 said:
Well, she was asked for her honest opinion, and she provided it. If she'd offered it unprompted, different rules would apply.
Click to expand...

Her opinion might have been honest, but it was ignorant (and actually contradictory with her book).
 
Whether or not a grown man is 'in love' with a 13 years old boy is not an 'opinion' that should be discussed as some kind of afterthought that can be, very easily, misinterpreted. Especially when it's coming from a woman who considers herself a Michael Jackson supporter or an expert and actually knows the consequences.

Besides, she volunteered the 'in love' part and it was a poor choice of words, because it has a sexual connotation - you love your friend and in love with your wife.
 
InvincibleTal said:
Whether or not a grown man is 'in love' with a 13 years old boy is not an 'opinion' that should be discussed as some kind of afterthought that can be, very easily, misinterpreted. Especially when it's coming from a woman who considers herself a Michael Jackson supporter or an expert and actually knows the consequences.

Besides, she volunteered the 'in love' part and it was a poor choice of words, because it has a sexual connotation - you love your friend and in love with your wife.
Click to expand...
I agree it was a poor choice of words, but again, we don't know what she meant by it. It was a small sound bite, with very little background to explain it. She was open about her uncertainty, either way...and as for the supposed contradiction, I can't address it. I only read "Conspiracy" once, and don't remember a lot of the details.
 
My favourite is Moonwalk by Michael himself, its very frank and a great read. My copy is an original I purchased in 1988 aged 12, and it is my most Precious Michael Possession, besides a 1982 NZ pressing of Thriller on Vinyl (But it skips). I love the pictures too.

I also like the J Randy Taraborelli one, even if it is a bit gossipy.

My recent favourite is the one by British fan Adrian Grant, A Visual Documentary 1958 -2009. I don't own it, but get it out of the library all the time. Its chronological but well written and it is obvious Adrian is a HUGE Michael Jackson fan complete with images of him and Michael both grinning through the book, first in 1990 with a Michael Bad style hairdo, then in 1995 with a whole TTD/Prince type look and finally in the 2000s. He also mentions the brothers and other parts of his life well and keeps a good run on chart statistics.
 
mjprince1976 said:
My favourite is Moonwalk by Michael himself, its very frank and a great read. My copy is an original I purchased in 1988 aged 12, and it is my most Precious Michael Possession, besides a 1982 NZ pressing of Thriller on Vinyl (But it skips). I love the pictures too.
Click to expand...
I remember finding my first copy of "Moonwalk" in a rare-books store probably 15 years ago or more; my Mom had graciously driven me to another city in search of it. The binding eventually wore out, so I threw it away and bought another one...but I tore all the pictures out of the old one first, so I could scan them without damaging my second copy.

I also like the J Randy Taraborelli one, even if it is a bit gossipy.
Click to expand...
I have that book too, but its so thick I get depressed just looking at it. I got about 100 pages in once, maybe a year ago...and just gave up. I do want to read it someday, but it'll take lots of patience...and I'm just not there yet.
 
I also really liked the one by Jermaine, who offered a real insight intohim and the fact that Michael really did not like racism. The story about the llama placed really had an effect on me. I know it is just so Michael, he could not see why people could judge each other over something like race. It is like you could feel his anger, but also his sadness in humankind.
Jermaine is a great story teller and it is easy to see why he became the Family spokesperson for the 2nd trial and Michael's funeral. About to start reading the Randall Sullivan one, is that any good?
Not so crazy about the Shmuley Boteach one though, I felt he had an axe to grind with MJ and was annoyed that MJ was too much a star for his liking. There was something sinsiter in Boteach's motives I think.
.
The book I would love to see, is one by Marlon Jackson. Marlon was the brother closest to him in age and it seems that Michael was closest to him in the group. If you look at a lot of Jackson 5/Jacksons promotional material, Michael is usually next to Marlon or has his arm around him. Marlon must know more about the young Michael than everyone and he must also know what it was like to be in his shadow at times.I know he has a reputation as the joker and he seems to live up to this in recent interviews. he reminds me a lot of Michael in his playful moods (The supersoakers at Neverland etc). But a book by Marlon would be amazing, it would probably tell even more than Jermaine's book did.
 
mjprince1976 said:
About to start reading the Randall Sullivan one, is that any good?
Click to expand...
I've heard a lot more bad than good about "Untouchable". The general consensus seems to be its accurate regarding the 2005 trial, but includes tons of rumors everywhere else. I had bought a copy after seeing Tom Mesereau's video endorsement, but the constant poor responses from fans led me to sell it. For example, he claims MJ's nose was severely disfigured, to the point he wore a prosthetic for the last five years of his life. He also claims Katherine Jackson tried extorting Michael, along with the rest of his family. :(
 
Last edited:
Its funny how the people in position to have books published about Michael Jackson are for the most part, people who knew of him or associated with him during the tail end of his career and never people associated during the most successful period of his career during the late 70s up unto 1985
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top