Shana Mangatal is publishing a book on Michael's Birthday 2016

[SoS]

"mainly due to Jackson’s first marriage to Lisa Marie Presley in 1994, his second marriage to longtime friend Debbie Rowe in 1996".

 

[InvincibleMJ]

“There was a time when it progressed to the next level, but the reason it ended was because of his marriage,” said Mangatal.

Mangatal says they even wanted a formal relationship, but the timing was always off, mainly due to Jackson’s first marriage to Lisa Marie Presley in 1994, his second marriage to longtime friend Debbie Rowe in 1996, and fatherhood. Mangatal said she always wanted more with the iconic pop singer, but their secret relationship only occurred before, during, and after Jackson’s marriages.

Doesn't make any sense.

 

[SoS]

It looks like she didn't recognize excuses as excuses. "Ooops I married someone else. Twice. And a busy dad to motherless children." OUCH

 

[redfrog]

And do you think we would know about every single person who worked around MJ and who were in love with MJ? Maybe, after all, there have been loyal people in his life who kept their relationships with him to themselves. Maybe Melissa is just one of those. Or maybe she is not alive any more.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if some girl named Melissa had been with him on the Bad tour and then around him and the band at least during the rehearsals in 1992 and MJ had a romantic relationship with her then a tape is published where MJ is talking about her in a romantic way someone would have made the connection over these many years given how many people were around MJ and given how scrutinized his private life was and given how many liked to talk about him for money or even just for the hell of it to feel important or to defend him for that matter. Sure there were loyal people who remained silent no matter what but there were many others who talked, sometimes even loyal people like Liza Minelli talked when she said MJ had a girlfriend with a long African name.
However, as far as I know noone ever said they saw Melissa or heard about her, I never saw a photo or footage where
MJ was with a girl who could be Melissa (we know she was not merely a fan we know her approximate age and that she was good looking) even though MJ said he wanted a romantic relationship with her and he said that he's gonna be with her and this time he won't ruin his relationship. By contrast Shana was seen around him, she has at least one photo that has been out for years, others talked about her, others saw her with MJ and she popped up in MJ's life time and again for 20 years.

It's either that ultimately he did not have a relationship with Melissa or he had and did a damn good job hiding her from the cameras and everyone who for whatever reason would have the inclination to mention her affair with MJ.

I think two Kathys are mentioned on the tapes, Kathy Hilton "you guys have known each other for such a long time" MJ knew her since high school and they were good friends to the very end, if you believe Kathy and Paris themselves.

And on another tape the 30 year old black woman named Kathy who was a nurse who was "supposed to get together with Randy".
We don't know based on the tape whether she was MJ's close friends or whether he knew him only because
she was Randy's girlfriend.
Neither of them is in the same category as Melissa who is totally unknown AND supposedly had a close relationship with him.

Ok, so she wasn't in Hawaii, then that's basically one concert that she attended on Dangerous tour. Why does it matter what did she do at the drums? What does that picture prove to you? To me she just seems like simply posing for a photo with the drums and then with the band. Just having fun backstage. What does that prove about her being Melissa?

Not that it makes much difference but what makes you think it was one concert? There were 8 concerts in Japan
and I don't know for how long Shana was on the tour anyway. Do you?

Of course this picture with the drums in an of itself proves nothing except that she was on stage at least once and had access to that area.
It's just one piece of a puzzle which makes Shana look similar to Melissa that's all.
The pictures prove that she had at least some connection to the band and her card proves that she had the right to access all areas
How common was that? Why was she allowed to go on stage during the rehearsals? Why did she have access to the band including their dressing room? Why did she want to be there at all if she was not friendly with them already?
Did you see pictures of other guests being on stage? Other guests who otherwise had no history with the band being in the band's dressing room?
If Shana had been doing "a lot of stuff with the band" (as MJ says that about Melissa) that would easily explain why she wanted to be on stage during the rehearsals in the first place, why she had access to the band including their dressing room and why she was so friendly with them. Of course there can be a different explanation, maybe the band members should be asked whether they ever dealt with a girl named Melissa or whether it was Shana who did a lot of stuff with them during the rehearsals.

I saw you wrote on LSA that "Melissa was a co-oordinator who apparently worked for MJ on his Dangerous tour. Shana did not work for MJ. She worked for Sandy Gallin "
Actually MJ did not say that Melissa was coordinator on the tour, he said she won't go on the tour. He said she is a coordinator and she does a lot of stuff with the band which refers to what she was doing during the rehearsals, in the present.
And if MJ worked for Gallin then de facto she worked for MJ since Gallin was his manager. It's safe to assume that the whole management team worked on preparing for the tour, don't you think? If Gallin was working on the tour then inevitably so did Shana. So it would all add up if Shana had been working as a coordinator and if she had done a lot of stuff with the band during the rehearsals amid which the towel meeting took place. It would also explain why she knew where all the offices were and why she had access to MJ's office, which I'm sure only a select group of people had whom MJ trusted and whom security allowed in.

In any case in 2010 responding to a fan she described what she was doing before the tour like this.
Sounds pretty much like a girl who was "doing all kinds of things" and who would know where all the offices are
and would have access to MJ's office too, just like Melissa.

"I worked for Michael's manager, which meant our office actually hired and paid all of the security and tour staff. We were essentially the boss. We put all of the tours together..routing the dates, approving the salaries of the band and staff (including the make up artists A manager is in charge of all of that. Michael told us what he wanted and it was our job to make it a reality. So, I didn't need Bill Bray to give me "permission" to come anywhere. That's hilarious! We also put together all of the music videos, tv appearances, interviews, photo shoots, etc. Anything that happened between 1990 and 1997, I was involved. And I was not "let go" from the company. I quit after 7 great years. Michael left first, about 6 months before me. We had just signed Mariah Carey when I left, in fact.

And Nelson Hayes MJ's long time assistant and assistant tour manager said that Shana was welcomed by everyone on the tour,
it's obvious that people on the tour including the band knew who she was very well:

Nelson Hayes: "Shana was not on the tour staff - she worked in MJ's LA management office. Came over to some LA rehersals and out to some tour dates, but was welcomed by all as far as I remember; so I have to debunk "In The Know"'s rumor; especially as far as my name & reputation is concerned. Bottom line: that was 1992 and it's now 2010. I know that most souls have more important things to deal with. Peace out."

I just don't think this is as coincidental as you see it. To me it would not be surprising to have all kind of girls in Hollywood offices that also work as models sometimes. Hollywood is full of aspiring models and actors, actresses etc. I would think being a coordinator is pretty common there too. And there were probably many people MJ invited on tour, including women. And I am sure there were LOTS of women around MJ who had a crush on him. LOL.

Yeah well it's even possible that two girls had a meeting with him that day and both told him that they want to be with him and knew his situation, who knows.
Of course if you just take one or two similarities it's not surprising. It's the combination of ALL those factors which makes it improbable that two women who were both
- young in 1992 and
- were coordinators and
- were models and
- had connection to the band and
- had access to his office and
- were at the rehearsals in June 1992 and
- were "doing all kinds of things" (Shana was a model, coordinator, receptionist , secretary, "We put all of the tours together..routing the dates, approving the salaries of the band and staff")
were in love with him during the same period (based on what MJ and Glenda say on that tape it was more than just a crush on him
"I love you Michael and I'll do whatever it takes")

I also don't see how writing a similar story with towel and everything would serve her if she is not that girl.
Pretending to be someone else while promoting her book , isn't she afraid that the real Melissa would come forward
and expose her as a fraud? Why does she think she can get away with this?

Maybe that's exactly why she won't say point blank that she is Melissa. Because notice that she did NOT say she was Melissa. She kind of insinuated it was possible, but in a way she can still safely backtrack if it is needed (for example if it doesn't fit her own story or a real Melissa happens to appaer). So my opinion is that it was a tactical response by her.

Too late. She is on the record de facto claiming that the girl on the tape is her. She cannot backtrack now.
She should just flat out say whether it's her or not, there's no gray area of maybe it's me maybe it's not me
because the meeting is totally unique given the place, time and MJ's towel and hat and what they were talking about.
I tried to explain this to one of her supporters on her facebook page and I got called a hater. LOL

Also what she said about Melissa being her possible nickname was vague and evasive.
MJ either called her that or he didn't, she has to know with absolute certainty. That MJ gave nicknames to everyone is
not an answer to the question whether he called her Melissa.
I tried to explain that too and her supporter gave the most ridiculous explanation:

Re: Melissa - perhaps MJ wouldn't want Shana acknowledging that. He liked to play games and have private jokes. Just because Shana told her story doesn't mean she didn't keep a nugget or two to herself.

Gimme a break.

When I pointed out how nonsensical that is another one of her supporter accused me of being envious.

I told you one cannot get proof from her at this point. It's a waste of time to ask.
Years ago she said this about why she won't post personal pictures with MJ on the net:

Thank you for writing. I would never release personal pics of MJ on a public forum like Facebook. Can you imagine how often these pics would be copied and pasted on every website imaginable? The pic I posted of me and MJ was taken by his photographer, therefore approved by him.

Fine let her keep the photos. I don't think photos, notes or letters alone would prove that she had an romantic relationship with MJ unless they are very personal which probably I wouldn't release either no matter what. I want her to show proof that she was a coordinator in June 1992 that she worked with the band then that she already did modelling in 1992 or before and I want her to explain why MJ called her Melissa or whatever that name is. I also want a full detailed timeline of where and how she was with MJ.
By now the band members like Dorian Holey and Darryl Phinnessee and Omer Batthi, Frank Cascio and Sandy Gallin have to be aware of what she is doing. So far none of them and noone else who knew her came forward and said she is full of shit while several supported her so I give her the benefit of the doubt unless some proof that she is lying comes to light.

 

[barbee0715]

^^thats hilarious, redfrog. You give her the benefit of the doubt and at the same time want a full detailed timeline and want to know exactly what she was doing (coordinator, model, office assistant, girlfriend) and when she was doing it

 

[HIStory]

^ Let's say she is Melissa. Does that prove what she claims now that she was the secret girlfriend of MJ, on and off, for more than 20 years up until his death? The Melissa on the tapes is following MJ around and it looks like she is begging him for a relationship. MJ meanwhile talks to her while putting a towel on his head. He says he was "kinda interested in her" and he does say "well, I am gonna be with her" but this remark doesn't sound very enthusiastic to me.

From 1:20.

[video=youtube;bSqlsS2Rkww]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=201&v=bSqlsS2Rkww[/video]

So from the tapes I'm not sure if it ever got serious with this Melissa, are you?

I see there have been two interviews with Shana on RadarOnline in the last two days. She is doing her rounds, promoting her book. This was one:

Mangatal told Radar that she was only recently able to look at her former love's pictures and music videos among other sentimental memorabilia.

"His death was so painful," she confessed. "Finally, I also picked up my old diaries from back then and read them all and when I was reading I thought, 'Wow. If only the public knew these things about Michael, maybe their opinions of him would change!' Because I see as the years go on, his legacy is not really being remembered as it should be."

Mangatal first met Jackson in 1988, and they remained friends until his death. Despite rumors about his sexuality, she said he undeniably "loved women" and was not "asexual."

"The book covers all of that from me meeting him as a fan and him flirting with me at our very first meeting and from then on I was like, 'OK, there's more to Michael that meets the eye, because he just flirted with me,'" she told Radar. "He's not asexual! He's not this man-child – he's normal!"

Jackson and Mangatal never took their relationship public. "It was 20 years of different encounters and intimate phone conversations and he cast me in two of his short films. So it was more than something you can explain in one sentence," she said. Mangatal said she always wanted a formal relationship with the "Bad" singer but acknowledges that the timing was simply off. She also believes that his two marriages, in part, hindered her chances.

"There was a time when it progressed to the next level, but the reason it ended was because of his marriage," she claimed. "I was involved with him, so of course you want more, but you don't always get more – especially with him."

And although their forbidden relationship occurred before, during and after Jackson's marriages to Debbie Rowe and Lisa Marie Presley, Mangatal explained that he never cheated.

"He was very respectful of his marriages and that's why it was sporadic," she said. "We became really close during the 1993 scandal and he married Lisa Marie so that kind of cut things off a bit until the divorce."

"After the divorce he cast me in another one of his short films called Ghost' and we grew closer again during that filming – after that is when we reconnected," Mangatal claimed.

"And then Debbie Rowe got pregnant [with Prince Michael Jackson II]. That made it sort of awkward again."

1) So their relationship just progressed to the next level, then he suddenly married Lisa Marie?

It must have been true love then. LOL.

2) If MJ only married LMP to show the world he was heterosexual why didn't he just marry the girl who he already dated and with whom his relationship supposedly just got to the next level?

3) Notice how she only really talks about MJ flirting with her, phone calls and hiring her for various jobs. That's the only concrete that she mentions and she is never clear about what the supposed "next level" means. That's weird to me. Maybe it is just me but for a long term relationship I don't think flirting and hiring me for jobs would be the highlights.

4) I really have a hard time with taking his girlfriend for 20 years claim seriously even based on the story that she is telling. A little flirting here and there doesn't make you a secret girlfriend of somebody for 20 years. The whole thing of "we just got to the next level but then he married Lisa" makes the whole seriousness of her self-proclaimed girlfriend status sound ridiculous to me.

 

[barbee0715]

I'm surprised that she had an interview with Radar but they seem to be the only media outlet with an avid interest in Michael right now.

All of this emphasis on asexuality makes me think they're reading this thread.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

So from the tapes I'm not sure if it ever got serious with this Melissa, are you?

I see there have been two interviews with Shana on RadarOnline in the last two days. She is doing her rounds, promoting her book. This was one:



1) So their relationship just progressed to the next level, then he suddenly married Lisa Marie?

It must have been true love then. LOL.

2) If MJ only married LMP to show the world he was heterosexual why didn't he just marry the girl who he already dated and with whom his relationship supposedly just got to the next level?

3) Notice how she only really talks about MJ flirting with her, phone calls and hiring her for various jobs. That's the only concrete that she mentions and she is never clear about what the supposed "next level" means. That's weird to me. Maybe it is just me but for a long term relationship I don't think flirting and hiring me for jobs would be the highlights.

4) I really have a hard time with taking his girlfriend for 20 years claim seriously even based on the story that she is telling. A little flirting here and there doesn't make you a secret girlfriend of somebody for 20 years. The whole thing of "we just got to the next level but then he married Lisa" makes the whole seriousness of her self-proclaimed girlfriend status sound ridiculous to me.

The claim that they "almost got to the next level" right before he got married is ridiculous because MJ and Lisa were dating for at least a year before they got married. I don't see how it's possible that MJ was almost getting serious (what does "almost" even mean? It's either you did or you didn't) with Shana while he was really getting very serious with someone else and eventually got married with her. He didn't just "suddenly" marry with Lisa Marie.

And again then with Debbie it got awkward? What made it so awkward?

 

[KOPV]

you guys want my personal honest opinion? no? oh well I'll give it to you anyways lol..

I don’t care if herbeing with Michael is true or not… Haveit to be fiction or nonfiction – everything that I have heard from her (that Iam aware of) has been pro MJ and gives a very “normal” view of Michael as a man… There are plenty of NOT real stories thattry to make Michael look strange and a predator.. Let people believe this, I would MUCHrather have them believe what she has to say than most written about him…
Plus we do not know, shecould have literally been a piece of @$$ and she thought it was more than itwas.. I wasn’t there..

 

[Lil]

I think she was just really infatuated with him (understandably so of course!) and wants to believe it was more than it probably was.. I'm sure Michael flirted with her, maybe they even had a fling - but I doubt it was anything serious if she herself describes their relationship as consisting of 'different encounters' and some phone calls spread over 20 years.

Anyway, I'd like to believe she's writing a book simply out of good intentions towards Michael but I'm afraid her reasons are a bit more selfish than that - and I think we can be sure Michael wouldn't have wanted her to write about their personal business whether they had a relationship or not

Do you know about any girl on the Bad tour who was a model and was in love with MJ and whom MJ was interested in? I sure don't.

But do you really think we know about any- and everything that happened in his life and everyone he has ever been with? Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen :ermm:

 

[SoS]

Whatever happened to, "ain't noboty's bidness but mine and my baby"

 

[Daryll748]

This is a Hilarious thread indeed :hysterical:

Either Michael just saw her as a 'friend' and 'girl to hire' for his shortfilms or he had a 'fling' with her and it didn't work out so he stuck with LMP and then Debbie.

Maybe Shana or Melissa or whatever her name is lol took Michael's 'gentleman' manners a bit too serious. :cheeky:
You know how Men are... If they are nice and friendly women think they are 'flirting' and then they 'desire' more but 'relationships' don't just happen 'over night' though. It works both ways.

Anyway, I agree that she's PRO MJ but then she needs to come up with a more 'credible' story and not add 'tons of sugar' to it.

like "almost relationship" or "the next level" :doh: That totally makes her story 'ridiculous' :rofl:

For one, if she would simply spill that they flirted while MJ was married or even divorced and it didn't work out that I would find that more plausible cause that is what 'Normal' guys eventually do, right?

Her quote of "MJ never cheated on me" is somehow :hysterical:. What part of 'cheating' doesn't she get really?

I know her intentions are good but with that kind of story she's only gonna 'embaress' herself.

Besides, should all this 'secret lover' stuff NOT remain Private as it completely 'debunks' the whole meaning of the word.
I mean IF you know PRIVATE stuff about MJ at least show the RESPECT to keep it PRIVATE otherwise you're just one of those leeches if you try to sell your story!

 

[Paris78]

https://www.facebook.com/shanamangatalofficial?pnref=story

These stories always have the most dramatic headlines they can think of. Lol. But thank you Radar Online for asking me about what I witnessed regarding the allegations against Michael. I spoke to him almost every day in 1993 during those trying times and I know what was in his heart. He really was just too nice. ?#?michaeljackson?

Two years ago today I reunited with Michael's longtime personal assistant/special project coordinator, Scott "House" Shaffer. We shared many laughs and tears reminiscing on the fun we had with Michael. There'll never be another Michael Jackson, that's for sure. He was so funny and fun and magical.

 

[SoS]

I had a lot of hope in this one........ at first. The respect left when, they weren't not only not even close enough for her to be in court with him to properly support him during 14 counts of life-threatening lies, but to have actually proudly done a tabloid show with a bunch of good sounding excuses and turns out that legal nor MJ wanted that. Oh but the fans and the tabloid show wanted it.

In Latin, res ipsa loquiter means, "the thing speaks for itself" so whatever comes out the mouth is all game when someone is saying one thing (we were engaged in an intimate relationship and am here to support) and doing another (going on TV, and pandering to fans & collecting those fans for self adulation), talking to the only person Mike ever called out as untrustworthy within his camp (Firpo Carr) and the highest of the low in MJ terms, writing a book about relationship with the most private soul in the world who deserved his privacy possibly more than any soul ever born. No wonder MJ did not trust women. He heard the Motown song as a child, "pretty girls come a dime a dozen".

Sckeniing. And what's even harder to stomach, apart from the painfully obvious lack of self respect (on national TV eagerly telling the world he called to apologize for marrying someone else plus outing him as a leading-on player if true) is selling the story for more money MJ charged for his music and quadruple the price of a tabloid rag.

Dissappointing and egregiously sad. Love of life slaps love of life in face on love of life's birthday. I think its being released on the wrong lover's birthday as its obvious which lover it is a present for.

I wouldn't care if someone is connected enough to have world leaders endorse it....just the mere fact that you even need "endorsements" is just....res ipsa loquiter. Makes MJ look like even more of a "freek" instead of making the world simply see his humanness to speak for itself.

Poor Mike. I am so sorry. Since 2009 his seemingly closest friends turned out to be utter leeches.

The good news is the naive, young, unwitting and/or compulsively fantasizing fans will have a ball.

Another who gets money and "glory" on someone else's hard work and fame. Mark, Karen, Wade, the list goes on .... and now this one. Goodness. It messes up my original hopes something awful in a shocking sort of way. I have to back up from the computer ... haha. tsk tsk tsk smh

 

[mjprince1976]

Personally I think its another groupie trying to cash in on a dead celebrity - The I loved Prince on the Lovesexy tour Volume 2 is coming. Funny name though, thought her name was something like Shanga Mantango for some reason.

 

[SoS]

"is the story that Jackson fans have been waiting for"

Target marketing anyone?

I'm sure it is probably BASED on "true events" and we've been warned thet it's what fans have been waiting for and how would she know? That says there will be a lot of what Michael Jackson fans WANT to hear.

At least it will show MJ in the hetero-orientation anyone paying more then the usual attention to him already know yet fans have pretty much created a demand as the PR about the book so glibly and blatantly points out.

It's sad but not the unforgivable sin because afterall...the force...it's got a lot o power and hopefully will heal her heart from all the pain of it all from start to finish because no doubt it had to hurt to basically be dissed by someone you we t through so much to be with.

I guess that could explain why she unabashedly wants the experience to PAY OFF. Bless her heart

 

[SoS]

To answer a PM who's mailbox was full: ...you willrecognize your question by the answer: well from my perspective...at first I could see not only how MJ could be attracted to her but also how she could have the nerve to think she was pretty enough or like we fans always worried over with MJ dare I say. "good" enough or fill in the blank... _____ enough for him as it's part of the typical (i know some are not) fan mindset plus her posibly fitting the billl in all those ...eh nevermind I just thought she was pretty! lol and she "sold" me and seemed somehow warm and down to earth ...again she sold me... she seemed so sweet and I so wanted for him the thing he needed most ...a friend.........and one who he could be insatiably attracted to...who could make his dream come true as his songs say and I think we all really wanted that for him and she looked and acted the part as parts go and was hoping it wasn't what it seemed (like someone who needed to use knowing him just for her own attention seeking purposes) and that there were some sorts of good things behind the scenes and could be a dream romance and true friendship with her and those things which we are so on about where looking out for MJ goes and our personal sense of "ideals" for him and I felt she probably/possibly did fit all that for all I knew about her which wasn't much but I realize we sometimes forget or take for granted that Michael was accustomed to and yet shy of being chased after by beautiful female (and running FROM for his SAFETY which is our basic reptilian SURVIVAL mechanism) so surely thruout his path in life he developed that instinct from the early days and can you imagine the creativity of girls from far and wide that because of his intelligence and sensitivity he learned to spot and feel and sense girls covertly seducing and trying and vying to get close to him, so while I figured he undoutedly could likely see straight thru her (to the little girl who grew up dreaming of marrying him) and her networking "strategies" it didn't have to imo necessarily be in the way of him liking her for her and my prayer has always been for the right persons to be with him whomever they may be and for a while I felt it could have been her for that reason. Instead it feels like she's just another person throwing a book at him unless time has in it a different surprise and a good reason she is so eager to make herself look like an opportunistic, insignificant side chick who MJ offerred a lot of excuses to and probably unwittingly (hopefully unwittingly) led on. I hope at least it will do what she claimed she did it for, for something to shift around the world's perception of Michael but fans already have that perception and if she's doing it for fans what's the point. Fans' perception of MJ's hotness as a male is what great fan fics are all made of. I wish her the best. I feel Michael would say, she means well. I guess. I just think she should consider releasing it on her own birthday to help herself heal. She's in a lonely position in a lot of pain and my heart does go out to her. I hope the book will at least be done well unlike the other one who worked with him which I read one or two pages of. Wow did I digress. SryThanks.

Please clear mailbox. We can carry on the PM there. Thanks for reaching out.

 

[Virre]

I wonder what she has to say about the other women that claim they had a relationship with him through the years, and specially those who has more intimate pictures than she has.

 

[redfrog]

You should ask these questions yoruself. Because you are the one who seems to be
bothered by me not believing her.
*Sigh*.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sceptical
Saying I think she lies or is delusional IS being sceptical. I did not say I was sure she was nuts.
I simply dared to express an opinion that "she SOUNDS like a delusional groupie to me" and you are
going on about it for pages in novel-length rants, acting all offended on Shana's behalf, but you are not invested.
Alright[/

Is this your idée fixe? You think if A tells B that C is not necessarly a liar and asks B whether he has proof that C is a
liar then A necessarly wants B to believe that C is telling the truth?
Faulty logic.
Once again: whether you believe her or not is not relevant to me. WHY you don't believe her is.

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses, if possible, in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

It's really hilarious that I was also accused of bias on her facebook page for challenging them
to explain why they are so sure she is telling the truth. You are doing the same from the other side.



Show me just one part in my posts when I even spoke on Shana's behalf let alone was offended.
I've been speaking on MY behalf as you kept misinterpreting my intentions.
When you say someone sounds like a delusional groupie then you think she is a
delusional groupie, period. Delusional means nuts. No need to spin that.
Being sceptical is one thing. Dismissing someone as a delusional is another.
I'm not flipping out about your opinion, I merely wanted to know why you have that opinion and saw your
reasoning behind it weak. Ever since then I'm trying to make you understand that and apparently you are unable
to.

Yes, I am aware that a civil trial is more risky. But it is what it is, you cannot do anything about it.

Yes it is what it is and therefore it's dangerous to leave the jurors with the impression that MJ didn't have sexual
relations with adults because he was into boys.
The three jurors who voted guilty were not rabid haters if they had been they would have never voted not guilty and Rodrigez also
planned to write a book so a book deal alone does not prove bias.
Cook was convinced that MJ fit the profile and Hultman really believed that Sneddon/Zonen established
a pattern of MJ molesting boys.
It was because Tom Mez failed to present any plausible alternative to the prosecution's narrative of MJ's sexual history!
The jurors were left with a story of MJ sharing beds with boys many times and never having a real relationship
with any woman. And to make it even worse Tom Mez didn't even bother to explain why MJ didn't associate
bedsharing with sex.
You don't have to be smarter than Tom Mez to see why that's problematic.

It's just the typical behaviour you desplay on this board - that you have a better idea about how to defend MJ than
anyone, including Mesereau.

Not more typical than your behavior who thinks you have a better idea about how to defend MJ.
You could say that about anyone who disagrees with you or Mesereau for that matter.
You think Tom Mez's defense was so brilliant despite at the end of the day virtually no juror was convinced that MJ
had absolutely no sexual interest in boys. "We all thought he was guilty of something" -- Rodrigez was
quoted. I think that result proves that Mez did a poor job establishing who MJ really was and why he shared his bed
with kids. You repeat that performance in civil court and you can say goodbye to MJ's legacy.

You ask what should be done in civil court: what about presenting the truth? If MJ was asexual then that.
If he was into women then that. If he was celibate then that.
Of course it's possible that MJ was inhibited by his skin disease, or was a religious celibate or noone was good
enough for him. The important thing is whatever it was should be told.
If the jury only hears that he was sleeping with kids do you think that's how he should be defended?


You think it's nonsense that he was asexual when there is no proof that he ever had sex with
anyone but one woman for a few years and even Lisa Marie said that "He's somewhat asexual ".
The adult magazines do not change that, looks like you can't fathom that some people watch porn but don't have
sex with a partner. They do exists. 1976-2009 without sexual partners except one he wanted to have kids with looks
like a classic case of an asexual man.

You are so sure MJ had sexual relations with multiple women (they were just not visible as you
put it), even though there is no proof of that at all while you don't believe Shana because she has not shown proof.
You can't have it both ways.
MJ calling himself heterosexual can mean that he was attracted to females not males
and never had sex with anyone but a female. Again, asexuals can have sex and may be attracted to others.
But where is the proof that he had sex with anyone but Lisa?

It's not true that it's impossible to establish someone's sexual history without his testimony. Jimmy Saville is not here
to tell anyone what his sexuality was but we sure know what it was.

If there is proof that he had sex with women fine that's what should be presented in court.
Remember what Robson said in 2005?
"I believe he has a sexual interest in women".
Don't you think this would come up again?
Robson could answer no I don't think he was sexually interested in women I lied in 2005
or he could say he had some sexual interest in women but he had a sexual interest in 7 year old boys too.
How would you handle that without explaining what he really was?

I am also aware of Lanning which is the hobby horse of haters nowadays, as it is yours apparently. It seems hater
arguments make a big impression on you.

1. The Lanning report is more than a hobby horse of haters. The ideas in that report would have been introduced in
court if Lanning had been called. Most likely Robson would want such experts on the stand too.

2. What makes a big impression on me is what I have seen for years both in real life and on the net when MJ is
discussed. The allegations almost always come up when you talk to non-fans. Among the main reasons why they
think he was guilty is the perception that he didn't like women, he had an amusement park in his backyard, he slept
with boys -- i.e. he fit the so-called profile.

It's not child abuse experts who can refute that but those who knew MJ and his relationships and why he did what
he did. If only the story that he shared beds with boys hundreds of times is told most people will conclude he was
into boys.

What you think about Lanning's and Clemente's evaluation is not relevant as to how effective they can be
to brand MJ as a serial boy molester in front of a jury made up of non-fans who know virtually nothing about MJ.
I'm not trying to convince you that Lanning and Clemente are full of shit we both know that they are.

What is a "normal hetero guy" to you anyway? What is the ideal of a "normal hetero guy" that MJ should have
lived up to in your book to be considered "normal" by you?
IMO there isn't such as a "normal hetero guy". Some people have more partners, some people have less partners,
some people are easygoing when it comes to sex, some people are not and they are not going to have sex with a lot
of people, not because of a low libido, but because they don't have that kind of deep intimate bond with many
that they need. To try to put people in little boxes, like if you had this many women and this much sex then you are
"a normal heterosexual guy" and if you didn't then you are not or you are some other sexuality than what you
claim - sorry, but that is extremely narrow-minde

Now that's rich, you cannot understand why an asexual would watch porn and you call me narrow-minded.
A normal hetero man is someone who has recurring urge to have sex with women and who sleeps with women.
You know very well as I do that the vast majority of men are like that. My father , uncle, brother, cousin are all like
that. The guys in my neighborhood are all like that. It's quite common, to say the least. And people have a tendency to consider what's common "normal". It's just an expression, bottom line is people generally do not consider it normal that a man
sleeps in a bed with kids hundreds of times and generally they don't accept that sex has nothing to do with that.

We are not talking about someone who had few partners but someone who based on the available proof today
only have ONE woman as his partner and at the same time shared a bed with kids hundreds of times. That's what
most people know about him except many don't even accept that he had sex with that one woman either.
So yeah you are right there are all kinds of hetero guys but this is a very specific case where people has to be
convinced that a man who did not sleep with women but slept with kids was still into women or was not into
anyone for whatever reason. You are harping on "low libido" that was just a clumsy way for me to
say that based on the available evidence MJ had no need for sex with others.

And if he wasn't that makes you think he was a child molester? I'd like to know that now, because you really sound
desperate for that asexual argument.

Previously you said I was desperate to convince you that he had sex with Shana. So which one?
I'm not desperate for anything. I simply believe at this point that he was asexual because the evidence adds up to that more than
anything else. How the heck did you conclude that I think if he was not asexual
then he was a child molester? If he was not asexual than he was having sex with women or he was celibate
or he had low libido or he was inhibited by his skin disease or noone was good enough for him.
There can be several explanations, the point is
whatever he was should be finally told. That stupid game of protecting his privacy no matter what is one
of the reasons why they could easily destroy him and while millions think he was into boys. Was it worth it?
I don't think so.

The mother thing is also something that you just love taking out of its context, don't
you? YOU were the one who brought up her mother's support for her as one of your evidences for her. It was
YOU, remember?
I only replied to that saying that a mother supporting someone is not surprising and will not convince me of
anything. That's what I wrote about her mother AFTER you brought the mother argument up first.

So stop twisting this around, will you already?

What? Of course you said that after I brought up her mother!
How did I twist it by pointing out that your response regarding his mother was weak?
How does that change the fact that her being her mother does not prove she is a liar?
How did I take that out of context?
I mentioned all those people who are behind her story to learn whether you have any info which proves that
they are lying. All you had is that her mother supports her because she is her mother, well that's not enough.
But again it's OK if you don't have proof against these people, it's not that you have to have I was just trying to
gather info which would help me make up my mind.

I don't know about the others, but Sandusky was married all along while he molested those boys. He seemed like
your "normal heterosexual guy", as you like to put it. Married, had kids - like "normal heterosexual guys" at his age
are supposed to be. There are also other molesters who are married and look perfectly "normal" to outsiders. Many
even have children. So much about a profile.

You apparently failed to read that report. Sandusky is a textbook case of a serial boy molester who married
to cover up what he really was and get easy access to children at the same time. He and his wife fit the profile to a T.
Dotti Sandusky looks weak and passive to say the least.
They never had any biological kid but Sandusky molested at least one of his adopted kids, if you believe Matt
Sandusky all conveniently covered up by a "marriage". Sandusky and his wife have also served as foster parents.
Perfect cover for a pedo looking for new victims.

From the Lanning report:

If Married, “Special” Relationship With Spouse

When they do marry, pedophiles often marry either a strong, domineering woman or a weak,
passive woman-child. In any case they will marry a woman who does not have high sexual expectations
or needs.
Pedophiles sometimes marry for convenience or cover. Pedophiles’ marrying to gain access to
children was previously discussed and is further discussed below.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

So marriage is one thing but romances let alone secret romances with women?
Now that's what men who are attracted to prepubescent boys and molest boys for decades
do not have. Because a secret romance by its very nature is not for PR not for covering up pedophilia
but the result of a man's true sexual desires.

His classmates have described him [Sandusky] as a studious "loner" who "never dated in high school" but was a
popular and handsome athlete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

No girl or woman in Sandusky's life except Dottie and a bunch of ADOPTED kids.
Mj's marriage to Lisa only fueled the fire because it looked like MJ married her
for convenience or cover and it was also short lived which made it look like
MJ fit the profile:

Older Than 25, Single, Never Married

By itself this indicator means nothing. It has significance only when combined with several other indicators. Because
they have a sexual preference for children, pedophiles often have some degree of difficulty in
performing sexually with adults; therefore, they frequently are not married or are married for only brief periods
of time.

Here's another part of the profile which Shana's story, if true, kills:

Limited Dating Relationships If Not Married

A man who lives alone, has never been married, and does not date adults should arouse suspicion if he possesses
other characteristics discussed here.

And another one:

Limited Peer Relationships

Because they cannot share the most important part of their life, their sexual interest in children, with most adults,
pedophiles may have a limited number of close adult friends. Only other pedophiles will validate their
sexual interests and behavior. If a suspected pedophile has a close adult friend, the
possibility that the friend is also a pedophile or will validate his sexual interests
must be considered.

And another one:

A woman married to a pedophile may not realize her husband is a
pedophile, but she does know he has a “problem” – a sexual-performance problem.
Because she may blame herself for this problem and because of the private nature
of people’s sex lives, most wives will usually not reveal this information to an
investigator; however, a wife, ex-wife, or girlfriend should always be considered
as possible sources of information concerning the sexual preferences and interests
of an offender.

What do you think Shana would say when asked about Mj's sexual preference and interests?

Another thing serial boy molesters do not do is to look for exceptionally good looking women like Shana. They
don't care about how they look, for obvious reasons.
Sandusky married a girl who looked average, at best:
http://s33.postimg.org/gtr24um4v/dotti.jpg

Watch this documentary about NAMBLA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygrd29-_O3I
None of those creeps are interested in women their mind is on boys boys boys and only boys.
These type of pedophiles build their entire life around four things: finding, grooming, molesting and dumping
boys. They wouldn't even have time for a secret romance with a woman!
And MJ was branded exactly that: a compulsive serial boy molester. Clemente compared him to Sandusky.
Still don't see how Shana's story, if true, could undermine that?

Show me serial boy molesters who had secret romances with women or even just
one secret romance. And especially one who had a secret romance then married another woman
and another one and then returned to his lover all the while supposedly being in love with
Jimmy Safechuck, Jordan Chandler and Wade Robson up to a point of marrying Safechuck!
Don't you see how absurd that whole picture is?

 

[redfrog]

^^thats hilarious, redfrog. You give her the benefit of the doubt and at the same time want a full detailed timeline and want to know exactly what she was doing (coordinator, model, office assistant, girlfriend) and when she was doing it

Why is that hilarious? Things are not necessarily black or white.

I want to know those things about her to decide with 100% certainty whether she is the girl MJ was talking about.
If it's her that at least proves that MJ was interested in her romantically in and around 1992. She can still embellish her story though
that's why I want to know the details, timeline, places, witnesses etc. and whether all of those add up as I want to see how good a witness she would
be against Robson if it goes to trial (she said she would be happy to testify) and to know how to refute
MJ's haters (that includes anyone who think he is a pedo) if they bring up Shana.
If Shana is a liar she is just another example of an opportunist who claims he/she had sex with MJ.
If she is telling the truth her story kills the whole "he is like Sandusky a typical serial boy molester" argument.

At this point there some evidence supporting her and no proof that she is a liar.
I won't make up my mind about her without being absolute certain one way or the other.
That's what giving the benefit of the doubt means.

 

[HIStory]

Redfrog, since this is now only going in circles and it is massively off topic here (I think it should be in the Trials and Tribulations section, not here), I am only going to reply shortly, and only about the points that have to do with Shana.

If he was not asexual than he was having sex with women or he was celibate
or he had low libido or he was inhibited by his skin disease or noone was good enough for him.
There can be several explanations, the point is
whatever he was should be finally told.

I agree that there can be several explanations besides either a child molester or asexual - which is what my point was about your asexual argument all along. I'm glad we finally agree. I also think we do not necessarily know everything about MJ's private life, so just because we don't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (eg. women in his life). However, I don't think Howard Weitzman or John Branca know anything about MJ's sexuality or private life. So how are they going to argue about it? Call the women. OK, but you say LMP wouldn't help because she looks like a cover-up (according to you at least). How would Shana help with the kind of story that she is telling right now? She only concretely mentions flirting and MJ giving her jobs and calling her on the phone. She says shortly before MJ and LMP's marriage it got to the "next level" (she doesn't clarify what that means), yet MJ married Lisa (the one that "everyone" believes to be a cover-up, according to you) and not her? So apparently Shana was even below the supposed "cover-up" in MJ's life? How is this going to help?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Mod warning - please refrain from derailing threads on MJJC. I suggest you take this haters discussion to "Debates with the public" or any other relevant thread in Trials And Tribulations.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/133197-Debates-with-the-public

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

What in world is going on in this thread?
I need cliff notes or something. :/

 

[SoS]

MODS HOPE MY COMMENTS DON'T COME OFF THAT WAY AND ARE SUFFICIENTLY ON/T ABOUT THE NECESSITY OR HELPFULNESS OF SUCH A BOOK IN QUESTION AS TO HELPING MJ OR NOT AND HOPE ITS OK TO COMMENT HERE (NOT SURE OF 'HATE' YOU SAW)

Just wanted to comment ON TOPIC of the stimulating reading of the respect77 and redfrog convo (sorry can't recall who's pov was which) I just want to point out a couple of factors that came to mind as I was reading.

One is that remember, MJ grew up in a devout Jehovah's Witness FAMILY and the culture of that lifestyle is highly "unusual" in itself in that sex is not something taken casually, lightly, or even 'normally' according to society's version of 'normal' least of all, casually.

second is, sometimes when a person is born into a heavily responsible and dutiful position, especially a child and a Virgo child at that, if they are in a supportive environment they are going to be more highly disciplined than the "average" or "common" or "normal" person and Mike told fans in the early 80s (1980 or 1981 Ebony or Jet magazine cover story...sorry I'm old! not sure which anymore) that he read books by Og Mandino, and other Napolean Hill era authors which I figured out at the time, who when you read those books you see some taught practicing sublimation of the sex drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology) (yes there is such a thing really) and I guess I should add this is my own perception of what I have observed in learning about MJ from the early days to now. This is reasonable as MJ was committed to spending time with, studying and emulating the greats and the ancients.

here's a thought in summary from the wiki article about sexual sublimation: Sublimation (German: Sublimierung) is the process of transforming libido into "socially useful" achievements, including artistic, cultural and intellectual pursuits. Freud considered this psychical operation to be fairly salutary compared to the others that he identified, such as repression, displacement, denial, reaction formation, intellectualisation and projection)

which has been tauted as a secret to success by great authors on the subject of achievement and some men are thusly focused that way as I have met a few who when it comes to the entire topic of sex they are very awkward at best. Achievement focus is paramount to sex focus to some such men and we see all the way to the end that achievement of his high ideals was still high on MJ's list of values, supported by his entire career being filled with new developments of his artistry. I will also point out that some women can deeply resent that in a man as it makes her feel left out, unattractive, undesired or even worse, disappointed that snagging him didn't come true afterall, and could explain why he married women who clearly furthered his specific personal goals.

plus imo, with or without any focus on 'religion', Michael's 'bent' (focus/personality make up) always seemed to be a lot more predominantly spiritual than carnal just in general and he kept himself as close to spirituality as possible by communing with nature and God's creations of every kind and with the humans on the planet who have been conditioned for the shortest amount of time because they had not yet been taught fear, hate or judgement ESPECIALLY if he was traumatized by strip clubs and huge crowds of people especially females, when he himself was but a young child, among all the other aspects of that business which cost him his experience of childhood. His criteria would understandably have to be different for how he'd have to deal with that whole topic and with so many women to choose from.

Number 4 is that there are two or three other "tell alls" about MJ's secret heterosexual life which if that strategy had been viable enough for court there seemingly are a few who could have been called, possibly including Steph Mills who was always answering a response to questions about MJ because it was known that they were close, and the others (if true) if that would have helped eliminate that "p" perception and which fans also debated/doubted the truthfulness of them as well (Theresa Gonsalves who says she lost her virginity to him of all things, some African woman who's book was less well advertised and short lived) and presumably Tatiana if her implications are true, that's why whether its true or not true is irrelevant now as the trial has been long over and none of those ladies were there including this current author.

Fithly, speaking of being in court with him, the author of this newest book was in his life at the time, according to her so why go to a tabloid TV show instead of to his attorney's office to ask, "what can I do?" "How can I help?" ...that would have been the biggest way to make the world stand up and take notice and the biggest favor she could have done imho whether Mez called her to come in or not, unless MJ said, "no I want to protect my privacy and yours too, but do us both a favor and go on a Tabloid TV show with the word, "entertainment" in its title and make us both look like a couple of flakes. Me, for hiding my hetersexuality and you for being on a tabloid show talking loud and proud with nothing substantive to say'

sixthly and near lastly, I haven't seen anything where he did anything but gave the kids his bed and hung out with the kids in his giant apartment sized room and giant bed (which kids make it even bigger) plus as that Arvizo boy said, "well, he slept on the floor I slept on the bed" and MJ said, "you give your best to company".

So for other occasions with Mac C and his sister and whomever being over there eating popcorn and living the 'idyllic' life with MJ, waking up and listening to birds sing, is not that far fetched when you consider his personality, not someone else's or a "common" man's persoanality, mostly consisting of his need to feel 'normal' by connecting with children in the purest sense and no, I don't expect most people to understand that, but it makes more sense imo than to think it is more "normal" to think of sex when in bed with a child and its unthinkable to me everytime I hear someone say, 'how can a grown man sleep in a bed with children and not think of sex." That sounds like looking at the world through the eyes of a pedophile.

I think the jury did 'get' MJ, despite what they said on National TV because even with reasonable doubt of the Prosecution's case they could have gone with it to protect other children if they really in their gut believed he was guilty.

A secret lover scenario seemed to have been unfolding with June C and Mez didn't pursue that route either. People are gonna think what they want to think based on their own limited frames of reference.

Lastly, I always had the impression some important nuances were always left out such as where were MJ's own children during these times and things like that. Does anyone know for a certainty that his children weren't there too? I've never seen them say, but I've also never heard anyone ask.

To me MJ always seemed to have an 'f' what anyone thinks even if it means not dragging his lovers, his children or anyone else into it. His own merits or not at all.

For whatever the reasons are that MJ has always been so private that he'd rather fight for his right to privacy than anything, are his own even if it did not do him any favors as I do agree, and I do feel we have to honor that just as when he was still here.


Feedback welcome *reminds self to stay on topic*

 

[HIStory]

So she thinks he had a "freakish appearance"? How very nice. That's how you talk about the "love of your life"...
Won't kiss and tell but she writes a book. Alright.

 

[Smooth72]

I'm joining this way late. My first question is in the newspaper article it says she is only 33 years old right? This supposed relationship goes back many years? So Mj was hanging with her since she was 5? When to the so called romance start? I'm confused here. ?

 

[HIStory]

I'm joining this way late. My first question is in the newspaper article it says she is only 33 years old right? This supposed relationship goes back many years? So Mj was hanging with her since she was 5? When to the so called romance start? I'm confused here. ?

No, that's an older article. She is in her 40s now.

I posted it because to say that the supposed "love of your life" had a "freakish appearance" in photos is very disrespectful IMO and downright strange from a woman who claims to love him. And the ridiculousness of saying she won't even tell if they kissed, but she is talking to tabloids - then and now - and now even writes a book. But principles are principles, right? LOL.

 

[Mikky Dee]

No, that's an older article. She is in her 40s now.

I posted it because to say that the supposed "love of your life" had a "freakish appearance" in photos is very disrespectful IMO and downright strange from a woman who claims to love him. And the ridiculousness of saying she won't even tell if they kissed, but she is talking to tabloids - then and now - and now even writes a book. But principles are principles, right? LOL.

I think her comment about the "freakish appearance" is being misunderstood and misread by fans, because many are looking for something to pick at and find fault with, due to their mistrust of her motives. I think what she means, is that in pictures, in the tabloids, he was often made out to look odd. Sometimes the worst possible images were chosen, to attach to articles, such as that horrible LAPD mug shot....sometimes the lighting was poor and then there was the off-putting appearance that went hand-in-hand with his complete loss of pigmentation in his skin. What she's saying is that he was perceived by the public, as being "freakish and weird", but he wasn't that way to her, because she could see his heart.

 

[barbee0715]

^^I was put off by the 'freakish appearance' comment as much as I was with Landis's 'grotesque' comment. But not bc of her motives or writing a book now.

If she is referring to that mug shot, since this article came out at that time, it would make it easier to understand. Speaking of, It's hard for me to see how that picture almost didn't involve photoshop in some way-he didn't look like that going in to the police station and didn't coming out.
I still don't get how they managed to get a picture that doesn't look one iota like Michael.

 

[redfrog]

I agree that there can be several explanations besides either a child molester or asexual - which is what my point was about your asexual argument all along. I'm glad we finally agree. I also think we do not necessarily know everything about MJ's private life, so just because we don't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (eg. women in his life).

I thought you thought it was nonsense that he was asexual as in that is not a possible.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's unlikely that he was asexual if he indeed didn't have sex with anyone but one woman in 32 years, a woman who herself said that he was "somewhat asexual"?
I go with the available proof. At this point there is no proof that he ever had sex with anyone but Lisa.
You seem to believe in the existence of invisible women in his life without proof while you don't believe Shana without proof.
I don't believe either unless I see proof. If new evidence emerges I'll change my mind.

However, I don't think Howard Weitzman or John Branca know anything about MJ's sexuality or private life. So how are they going to argue about it? Call the women. OK, but you say LMP wouldn't help because she looks like a cover-up (according to you at least).

1. According to me? I don't think their marriage was a sham others do and you know that as well as I do. A lot of people thought and think that the whole thing was a PR move to improve his image after the allegations.

2. Lisa wouldn't be a good witness mainly because of all the shit she has said about MJ including her wishy-washy statements regarding Mj's innocence. Like we have to be in the ****ing room to know whether Chandler and Arvizo were lying. The woman is a moron and she trashed MJ so all of that would be used by Robson's lawyer no doubt.
BTW Shana is the exact opposite of Lisa in that regard: she never said anything bad about MJ and her statements indicate
a good understanding of MJ's personality and character, many of the things she said about MJ we could hear from many other
people who knew him. Lisa is a typical cynical bitter bitch who never grasped what MJ was all about anyway.
Remember this?
"As much as he can love anyone else, possibly. I don’t know how much he can access love, really. I think as much as he can love somebody he might have loved me."

Oh so Michael Jackson of all people can't access love, he has no clue what that is and he doesn't know how to love others.
Probably the dumbest shit a non-hater ever said about MJ.

Compare this to Stephanie Mills, for example:
We were maybe 18-years-old. I got to know him as a person, as a friend and he was really all about our love — very affectionate, very loving. He was really all about love.

I think it's obvious why Lisa would be a horrible witness.

3. I very much hope it won't be Weitzman who will try to defend MJ if Robson wins summary judgement. Weitzman ****ed MJ
on TV in 2005 he is not passionate about MJ's innocence frankly he comes across as someone who doesn't give a **** about MJ
and doesn't understand him at all. I can't see him of all people explain why MJ didn't think sharing a bed with boy, or anyone for that matter, was sexual and that would be key to win the case.
But if he ended up defending him he'd better know a lot about his private life and interview
as many people as possible who knew MJ. Because the whole issue is about MJ's private life , sexual history to be precise!
The true story of that should be told otherwise Robson could win no matter how full of shit he is. Everyone knows he was married to Lisa it's the other women noone knows about , if they existed.
And if MJ didn't have a need for sex with anyone then that should be told.

How would Shana help with the kind of story that she is telling right now? She only concretely mentions flirting and MJ giving her jobs and calling her on the phone.

As I said she has to reveal the whole timeline with locations, dates, naming witnesses and describe what happened in a manner which
sounds plausible otherwise she should go and **** herself for fooling the fans.

However it's not true that she only mentioned flirting, phone calls and MJ giving her jobs.

1. She described their first meeting in details and that story sounds plausible. She said MJ kept starring at her and so after a while she went over to him and said Hi and was very shy and didn't know what to say he shook MJ's hand and MJ didn't let her go and was such a flirt. I can totally see that based on everything I know about MJ. He sure had an eye for the ladies and he was a flirt. But Shana should reveal who else saw this who were around MJ when this happened so her story could be verified.

2. She made it very clear that it went way beyond flirting, everyone knows what a romance is and on ET she flat out said that their relationship was intimate. Noone confuses that with mere flirting. She also said MJ was not asexual and loved women, well what do you think she meant by that? Also "next level" could mean a sexual relationship
or being close to marriage, she should clarify that too.

3. She talked about other experiences she had with MJ, like laughing on the set of Ghost to a point that the director sent both of them off the set how down to earth MJ was, attending the 1991 June 6 10th anniversary of MTV where MJ performed and that she introduced Bryton McClure to him for the first time and that MJ would always ask her about Bryton, that he had his pockets filled with tic tact and wherever she would ask for one, he would have her reach in his pocket to get it, how they played video games in the arcade with MJ, Nick and Aaron Carter and Rodney Jerkins (she also defended MJ when that stupid Aaron Carter cocaine alcohol story was going around) , that she talked with MJ about show biz a lot and MJ knew she wanted to be an actress so that's why he put her in Is is Scary and Ghost, that she hosted a party for him at Neverland in 2004 not soon after that ET interview, that MJ thanked her after the ET interview but asked her not to give more (one thing is sure MJ did not deny what Shana said and did not cut ties with her which indicates that he still trusted her despite her not consulting with him before giving that interview) and that she was with MJ at the 2007 New Years Eve Copperfield show in Las Vegas and later she had an open invite for the This is it rehearsals which you can be sure she wouldn't have without MJ's approval. She attended once for 5 hours, Dorian Holley confirmed it. So while she absolutely should tell more in fact I think she should tell everything all her experiences with MJ (not graphic details of course just what happened where when why who was present) it's undeniable that they did know each other for 20 years
and that they were friends. I see some on LSA who find that ridiculous there is strong evidence that even in 2009 they were in contact at the very least, which pretty much proves she was not merely a groupie. She said she had an open invite to attend any day of the rehearsals I doubt anyone could have that without Mj's approval especially since Shana did not work on the tour.

She says shortly before MJ and LMP's marriage it got to the "next level" (she doesn't clarify what that means), yet MJ married Lisa (the one that "everyone" believes to be a cover-up, according to you) and not her?

And why do you think that's so strange? MJ wouldn't be the first man in history who has two women in his life, who is attracted to both maybe even in love with both then picks one to marry over the other. There can be a number of explanations why MJ decided to marry Lisa not Shana:
- Lisa had her own money. MJ talked about this to Schmuley and yes this was important to him in terms of whether he can trust a woman or not.
- MJ wanted kids and Shana may have told him that she does not want kids. Sure she doesn't have any, as far as I know and she is 45 year old. Maybe she didn't want to be a mother.
- Shana and MJ might have had a falling out over the 346712 possible issues people can have a falling out over.
If Shana is Melissa MJ already said that they had a little falling out and that was before any really sexual relationship with her.
MJ also said that he ruins his relationships and sounded really stubborn when he said let me make my own mistakes and it doesn't matter I make my own decisions. With a person like that I can easily see who his relationships can go south from one moment to the other. Hell, it happened with Lisa Marie within just a year!
- MJ was afraid that Shana could not handle the hoopla which went along with being married to Michael Jackson. Lisa was a public
figure already and Elvis's daugther so MJ might have assumed that she would be able to understand the crazy situation MJ was in because of the fans, the press, all the vultures around MJ etc. MJ might have assumed that his marriage to Shana would not last long if the whole freaking world would know about them. He actually warned Debbie about "what they can do" before they got married and Debbie shrugged it off only to realized later that she had no idea how horrible the press can be.

So apparently Shana was even below the supposed "cover-up" in MJ's life? How is this going to help?

What do you mean below the cover-up? Didn't you read what I wrote about Sandusky and why he was married
and why boy molester pedos sometimes get married? The very reason why Shana is a far stronger argument against that profile
is that she was NOT married to MJ and didn't even have a public relationship with him.
She, supposedly, was a secret lover on and off for years.
Nobody can argue that MJ had a relationship with Shana for PR or fool the world that he didn't like boys because
he did his very best to keep her secret.

So how could Shana help?

1. For one thing she says she knew the families who approached MJ with the kids this phenomenon
of parents and kids alike wanting to get close to MJ, not the other way around, should be told in court because both Robson
and Safechuck are doing their best to present a radically different picture: that it was MJ who initiated the contact and he acted like
a predator looking for new prey and luring them to himself.
She also claims that she had almost daily contact to MJ during a very relevant period: the weeks before the Chandlers
publicly accused him. What happened during those weeks was never told to the public except by Mary Fisher most people to this
day do not know what it was Evan Chandler who first accused MJ and MJ learned about what Evan was up to on July 8 or 9 1993 before Jordan accused him of anything. If Shana talked to MJ then she can tell the story of how MJ reacted to Evan's threats
how Jordan kept denying that he was molested even on July 9 (I bet MJ talked about that meeting his condo). She can reveal
how Evan first demanded money and what went on during that Aug 4 meeting (if she was in daily contact with him there's no way MJ didn't talk about that), she can tell how MJ refused to pay how he kept saying I won't pay them anything I didn't do anything.
This is extremely relevant because most people to this day don't know that Evan demanded millions and MJ refused to pay him off.

Lisa also claimed at one point that even before the allegation their relationship was romantic but I don't trust Lisa for a second because of her history of trashing MJ. So Shana by contrast never said a bad word about MJ quite to the contrary, everything she said about him suggest a great understanding of his character (she said he couldn't say no to anyone, he was sweet and kind, he was funny and would give the shirt of his back if someone asked him, we heard all of that from other sources). So if someone like that could finally tell the story of what MJ went through between July 8 and Aug 17 1993 and how he handled the situation why things happened the way they did it could mean a lot.


2. She could make Robson and Safechuck look absolutely ridiculous. Here's why.
Take for example the 1988 meeting and what she said MJ was doing:

Everytime I would look at him across the room, he was staring at me. It made me a little uncomfortable and I kind of wished he would just come over and say something! Finally, I got up the nerve to walk over to him. Immediately, he smiled the biggest smile, reached out his hand, and said ,"Hi." His hand felt like a soft cloud. I didn't know what to say, so I just smiled and said hi. I tried to let go of his hand, and he kept holding on! I couldn't believe it. He was always such a flirt.]

Let's assume this is what really happened. This was in March 1988 supposedly in the middle of MJ grooming Safechuck and only a few month before he started to molest Safechuck. So the picture is that this guy while falling in love with Safechuck, a 10 year old boy, he just happened to be starring at and flirt with a good looking 18-19 year old chick. Does that make any sense to you?
And then let's assume Shana is Melissa (and at this point I find that more likely than not) while being sooo in love with Safechuck
that he married him and being also in love with Robson MJ just happens to desire a real relationship with a woman
because he is now 34 and feels he is running out of time.
Makes absolutely no sense! Not if someone is a serial boy molester who do not dream about real relationship with a woman.
And the fact that MJ also started to date Lisa Marie Presley during the same period makes Robson's Safechuck's and Chandler's look even more absurd. So MJ is into TWO women while being crazy about Robson and Chandler I sure would like to see Lanning or Clemente to explain how that fits the profile!

3. Safechuck with all his Dimond/Stacy Brown/Gutierrez inspired BS portrays MJ as a woman hater who showed bad pictures of
Sheryl Crow sans makeup and listened in on the conversation of Safechuck's mother's only to tell Safechuck that you see you cannot
trust women they are mean. It's obvious why Safechuck is doing this, Gutierrez's book is also filled with this MJ doesn't like women crap. Need I explain how Shana's testimony could blow a hole in that whole theme?

Anyway, there are some really stupid posts over there at LSA including that April Smith is Shana (LOL she is not)
or this:

Let's not forget the fact that over the years Shana has created multiple user names on various fan forums and Facebook to corroborate certain "stories". There were rumors going around that she saw Michael on New Year's Eve 2006 at a magic show in Vegas. The original rumor was that they bumped in to one another after the show and then it turned in to they arrived together and were on a date (keep in mind Prince, Paris, and Blanket were with Michael at this show). People were calling Shana out because the story changed. Then several people started commenting on the post claiming they saw Shana and Michael there and they were sitting together, flirting, etc. These were all new accounts that had been created and it was obvious what was going on. She not the brightest and doesn't cover her tracks very well.

1. Where is the evidence that those accounts were created by Shana?

2. Who invented and spread those particular rumors? Shana herself never wrote or said anywhere that they bumped into
one another or they arrived together. She wrote this on facebook on 12/23/07

Shana’s Response:
“Hi Anji!
I will tell you that I did see MJ last New Year’s Eve in Vegas after the Copperfield show. So, I am curious to know who is spreading these rumors. Thank you, Anji, for your support. Are you from the US? Your picture is very beautiful!
All My Best,
Shana”

Nov 5 2008 a fan named mjhjww830 wrote this:

I saw Michael Jackson a while ago while I was working in Vegas. I had no idea that this board existed but when a friend of mine saw him recently with the same women, I did some searching on the internet. After comparing notes with my friend and doing searches on the internet, I found this woman to be Shana Mangatal. I found this site to be legit and I wanted to let his fans know about what I saw. Previously, I worked at a theatre in Vegas. On New Year's Eve in 2007, I saw Michael Jackson at the David Copperfield show. I was stunned to see Michael Jackson in the flesh. But what really caught my attention was that he was very obviously staring at this woman, Shana, the whole time. I wondered if he actually saw any of the show because he was staring at her so hard. he had 3 bodyguards with him and they were standing off to the side. Shana had a big smile on her face the whole time. Shana and Michael kept smiling at each other. I found it weird because at the time, I was wondering who this woman could possibly be that had Michael so interested. After the show, he took his kids over to say hi to Shana. He hugged her for a very long time and I distinctly heard him say, "You're looking good!" Then, I watched them all go up in an elevator together. When I went back to work the next day, I saw Shana again. I found out later that she lived in the hotel. I walked up to her and said hi. She looked a little surprised but said hi back. She is really beautiful up close and I can see why Michael was all hugged up on her. I said I saw her with Michael Jackson yesterday. Immediately her eyes shifted and she seemed nervous. She said yes I saw Michael yesterday and it was really nice to see him. I saw she was feeling real uncomfortable so I asked her quickly if she was with him. She just started walking off and said bye it was nice meeting you. I was like okay, that was strange. So that was New Year's 2007 but my friend who encouraged me to post this said he saw Shana and Michael hanging out together at a Halloween party in LA. He said they were trying to act like they were not together or liked each other but it was obvious to everyone. How long has Michael been with Shana? It looks like they are trying to keep this on the DL.

The Las Vegas meeting was then reported by Jacky Jasper in 2012 the sources was unnamed:

Here’s what a source had to say about seeing MJ and Magatal together in Las Vegas at a 2007 David Copperfield show:
“People would like to doubt Michael Jackson had a regular girlfriend. I couldn’t believe it, but I saw Michael Jackson with a girl at the magic show in 2007. I was wondering who the girl was, MJ couldn’t take his eyes off her.
I saw him hug her and kiss her lips. I never knew who the mystery woman was until I later on saw Shana doing an interview with Entertainment Tonight.”
http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/mjs-secret-longtime-girlfriend-revealed/

That user on LSA makes it sound like Shana made up the whole Las Vegas meeting and she was the one who posted ever changing versions of the story. There is no proof that she posted anything but that one message on facebook. Everything else could have come from someone else who saw MJ and Shana together then picked up by others adding their own inventions.

Here's what we can know for sure: Shana WAS with MJ at that Copperfield show on New Years Eve in 2007 and MJ's bodyguards were there too Bill Whitfield confirmed it on twitter. As for the details about MJ's attitude toward Shana he said
no comment.

https://twitter.com/MJBODYGUARDS/status/737901841246228480

It would be great if fans, if they want to know the truth, challenged Shana for things she indeed did say and did do instead of
attributing actions to her which she didn't do and denying events which did take place.