T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/14

jamba

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,261
Points
0
Location
usa
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

whoops, got the date wrong--last night 1/2/14!!! I am not sure how to edit the thread title--anyone know?
 

MJMarty

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,173
Points
48
Location
Ireland
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

Really enjoying hearing Mesereau on this, his first lines after the CM interview clip were something I'd always noticed but nobody ever talked about: so many people who were in Michael's life said they were his number 1 and the only person that he trusted, CM was just another on the list.
 

jmurfy

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4
Points
0
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

Really enjoying hearing Mesereau on this, his first lines after the CM interview clip were something I'd always noticed but nobody ever talked about: so many people who were in Michael's life said they were his number 1 and the only person that he trusted, CM was just another on the list.



I just listened to the whole thing. I recommend it. He talks about a variety of subjects. He thinks that Murray interviewed in Australia because America refused to pay. When Murray is asked in that interview if he thinks MJ is a pedophile, Murray says he cannot answer at this time. Mesereau says he is probably holding out to answer that in a book, or another interview for additional money. Aphrodite also says now, that she is unsure about Chandler case. Mesereau says she probably is holding out her opinion so that she can take time to investigate it.Says the Jacksons have a right to make a documentary if they want to. Much, much more...
 

jmurfy

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4
Points
0
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/01/03/tom-mesereau-returns-to-king-jordan-radio

Last night T. Mez answered questions re A. Jones, 93 settlement , 2005 trial, R. Sullivan, etc.

So basically Tom says that Murray was able to be interviewed in Australia because US tabloid would not pay him. In the interview, when asked if he believes MJ is a pedophile, he says he cant answer that. Mesereau says that this may be a ploy for Murray to asked again later, so that that he can be paid for future interviews. Aphrodite also has reservations recently about June Chandler's behavior during MJ's trial, saying that she cant say how she feels about his innocence re: Jordie Chandler.
 

qbee

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
11,827
Points
0
Location
Michigan USA
Wonder who said the Jackson's didn't have a right to make a documentary, for Tom to respond like that. They can make one. It was never stated they couldn't make a documentary.
 

Juniper

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
8
Points
0
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

Really enjoying hearing Mesereau on this, his first lines after the CM interview clip were something I'd always noticed but nobody ever talked about: so many people who were in Michael's life said they were his number 1 and the only person that he trusted, CM was just another on the list.

So right...
 

Mjjprincess18

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
69
Points
0
Location
California
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

I just listened to the whole thing. I recommend it. He talks about a variety of subjects. He thinks that Murray interviewed in Australia because America refused to pay. When Murray is asked in that interview if he thinks MJ is a pedophile, Murray says he cannot answer at this time. Mesereau says he is probably holding out to answer that in a book, or another interview for additional money. Aphrodite also says now, that she is unsure about Chandler case. Mesereau says she probably is holding out her opinion so that she can take time to investigate it.Says the Jacksons have a right to make a documentary if they want to. Much, much more...

Sorry quick question, do you know what Mes means by saying Aphrodite is now unsure about Chandler case? Does she now believe Michael was guilty of something or am I interpreting that wrong?
 

AliCat

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
1,626
Points
0
Location
Near a National Park
131 minutes is a long time to listen, I'm almost through the first 40 minutes. Ms. Jones, according to Mr. Mesereau is a journalist and she needs to do an investigation as to what happened with the 1993 situation between Michael and the gorgeous 12 year old Jordy Chandler.

Ms. Jones is questioning the 1993 allegations all because of Jordy's mother's testimony during the 2005 trial. Whatever!

June was seduced by her own greed and the limelight of Michael Jackson's lifestyle. June used her own son as a pawn, knowing Michael did enjoy Jordy's company. Yes, Michael probably looked upon Jordy as how he wished he had looked when he was younger. It's why Michael did do some plastic surgery. Michael just didn't like the way he looked when he hit his teen years. It was an insecurity that Jordy's mother, June Wong, Chandler, Swartz used to her advantage and then that deadbeat ex-husband joined in and the rest is history.

I give Tom Mesereau credit about the settlement being a disaster. I still wonder if by December of 1993, with Bert Fields excusing himself as Michael's lawyer and Johnny Cochran coming on board, if Johnny had more persuasion than John Branca or Mr. Weitzman in settling the case, because by January of 1994, the case was settled and the Chandlers dropped their suit because they made millions off of Michael. Tom is completely correct in calling the settlement a disaster. Since John Branca and Howard Weitzman were part of Michael's legal team at the time of the settlement, I'm sure they will handle Wade just fine.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

Sorry quick question, do you know what Mes means by saying Aphrodite is now unsure about Chandler case? Does she now believe Michael was guilty of something or am I interpreting that wrong?

Aphrodite Jones gave an interview a couple of months ago in which she said she thought MJ was "in love" with Jordan. She admits she does not know anything about that case (which shows in this ignorant comment) because she did not investigate it yet she makes such a stupid comment. She said she bases it on June's 2005 testimony, when in her book she did not give the impression she thought June was credible - on the contrary.

BTW, this subject is discussed in the Wade thread, so I'm not going to repeat everything that is discussed there: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...aim-of-sexual-abuse-against-MJ-Estate/page332
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Yes, Michael probably looked upon Jordy as how he wished he had looked when he was younger. It's why Michael did do some plastic surgery.

I don't think we need to make up things and project our own opinions onto Michael. Let's stick with facts. There is nothing that indicates that Michael wished he looked like Jordan when he was younger.
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Jones has always been a hater. she just pandered to the fanbase because of the 05 verdict.
 
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
I don't think we need to make up things and project our own opinions onto Michael. Let's stick with facts. There is nothing that indicates that Michael wished he looked like Jordan when he was younger.

agree. what a ridiculous statement to make
 

Billie Jean 78

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
829
Points
0
Location
Slovenia
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

Aphrodite Jones gave an interview a couple of months ago in which she said she thought MJ was "in love" with Jordan. She admits she does not know anything about that case (which shows in this ignorant comment) because she did not investigate it yet she makes such a stupid comment. She said she bases it on June's 2005 testimony, when in her book she did not give the impression she thought June was credible - on the contrary.

How can she say she doesn't know anything about the Chandler case? Didn't she write a book about it? Or did I get things mixed up?
 

LastTear

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,245
Points
0
No that was only the Arviso case. I thought she always has said that she was unsure about the Chandler case as she had never researched it.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

How can she say she doesn't know anything about the Chandler case? Didn't she write a book about it? Or did I get things mixed up?

Yes, as LastTear said her book is about the Arvizo case, not the Chandlers. Having said that in that book she does not represent June's testimony as credible at all, yet now she takes it's June's testimony which makes her unsure? WTF? If she did a little research she would know that June's testimony contradicts Jordan's 1993 interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, so two Chandlers contradict each other on the matter and we have not even heard Michael's version. But like she said she did not research the 1993 case. That's OK, but then she should not say stupid comments. Just say "I didn't research it, so no comment" and that's it.
 

Billie Jean 78

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
829
Points
0
Location
Slovenia
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

The Arvizo case? Was it somebody else then who wrote about the Chandler case? About how she was on the accusers side (even working on their side) at the beginning and how they tried to manipulate the law against Michael. I'm almost sure I didn't get it mixed up with the Arvizos.
 

Electro

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,308
Points
0
Location
East Germany
T-Mez made it clear that Aphrodite Jones did a great service with her books to the MJ community and MJs reputation.

He said that she has to look after herself for not only being recognized as an "MJ fan" by the outside world. She has to come across neutral and objective or the outside world won't listen to what she has to say about MJ.

T-Mez says he thinks that this is the reason for the tone of the comments she made (and she only made them because she was specifically asked about the 1993 case in that same radio show btw).

Of course in the eyes of MJ fans these comments might have been a little too "neutral". But whatever... many MJ fans are too paranoid for haters (i say). :)

LISTEN to the interview!!
The bits about what he thinks about the 1993 settlement are really interesting.
 
Last edited:

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
Alicat twice you mention that Michael wanted to look like these boys, and I don't know where you are getting this from. This is connected to the DA trying to stress that Jodi was a "pretty boy." There is no evidence that Michael wanted to look like Jodi or any of the boys. Michael was only unhappy with his appearance when puberty came, which makes sense. He did not like the pimples, blemishes, and the part of his face Joe complained about. Since, especially during puberty we become self-conscious about our looks anyway, being berated by Joe about his looks just added to his unhappiness and feeling of insecurity about his looks. However, at no time did Michael ever say he wanted to look like these boys, and I wish you would not say this anymore because your statements carry a lot of implications. Michael hung around with Emmanuel, so does that mean he wanted to be a short boy who would not grow when he was young, and I mean no offense here to Emmanuel. I am just using this to make a point. He hung around a boy with cancer. Does that mean he wanted to be a boy with cancer when he was young? You disregard all the other characteristics and focus only on the looks. Why?
 
Last edited:

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
T-Mez made it clear that Aphrodite Jones did a great service with her books to the MJ community and MJs reputation.

He said that she has to look after herself for not only being recognized as an "MJ fan" by the outside world. She has to come across neutral and objective or the outside world won't listen to what she has to say about MJ.

T-Mez says he thinks that this is the reason for the tone of the comments she made (and she only made them because she was specifically asked about the 1993 case in that same radio show btw).

Of course in the eyes of MJ fans these comments might have been a little too "neutral". But whatever... many MJ fans are too paranoid for haters (i say). :)

LISTEN to the interview!!
The bits about what he thinks about the 1993 settlement are really interesting.

Sorry, but there is nothing "neutral" in what Aphrodite Jones said. She did not just say "I did not investigate or research the 1993 case so I'm not going to comment on that". This is what would have been fair and neutral. But she did not say that. What she basically said was "I did not research the 1993 case but I think MJ was in love with Jordan." WTF? This is not fair or neutral at all! Especially when she says she bases this opinion on June Chandler's testimony. Have you read the part about June's testimony in Aphrodite Jones' book? There she does not give the impression at all that June was in any shape or form a compelling witness. On the contrary. So saying now the opposite is pretty interesting, to say the least. I don't know how you get the idea that this somehow makes her look "neutral". It just makes her look flip-flopping. By the way, had she researched the 1993 case (which she admittedly did not) she could have found that Jordan's own words in his 1993 interview with Dr. Richard Gardner contradict the story that Aphrodite Jones finds "unnerving" in June's testimony. But if she was lazy to do that research she should not have made such a comment that "MJ was in love with Jordan". This does not make her look neutral, just ignorant.
Nor does calling a the questioner condescendingly "honey-bunny" make her look any more professional or neutral.
 
Last edited:

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: T. Mez was on BlogTalkRadio 1/2/13

The Arvizo case? Was it somebody else then who wrote about the Chandler case? About how she was on the accusers side (even working on their side) at the beginning and how they tried to manipulate the law against Michael. I'm almost sure I didn't get it mixed up with the Arvizos.

Aphrodite's book is about the 2005 trial and only about the 2005 trial.

It was Geraldine Hughes who wrote a book about the Chandler case. She worked in Barry Rothman's office when it happened. Rothman was the Chandlers lawyer. I don't think she ever said she was on the accusers side - she was only on that side because she happened to work for Rothman. But she said she experienced things which made her suspicious and she made notes and a diary as it happened, and eventually she published her book in 2004.

Hughes' book is entitled Redemption and it's a great book. It's very matter of factly, since she works in law, very much focused on the legal matters, laws etc. Her book is the best in representing the legal reasons of why Michael settled, how he was basically forced to settle because of the clever legal moves of the Chandler side and some questionable rulings by the Judge.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Alicat twice you mention that Michael wanted to look like these boys, and I don't know where you are getting this from. This is connected to the DA trying to stress that Jodi was a "pretty boy." There is no evidence that Michael wanted to look like Jodi or any of the boys. Michael was only unhappy with his appearance when puberty came, which makes sense. He did not like the pimples, blemishes, and the part of his face Joe complained about. Since, especially during puberty we become self-conscious about our looks anyway, being berated by Joe about his looks just added to his unhappiness and feeling of insecurity about his looks. However, at no time did Michael ever say he wanted to look like these boys, and I wish you would not say this anymore because your statements carry a lot of implications. Michael hung around with Emmanuel, so does that mean he wanted to be a short boy who would not grow when he was young, and I mean no offense here to Emmanuel. I am just using this to make a point. He hung around a boy with cancer. Does that mean he wanted to be a boy with cancer when he was young? You disregard all the other characteristics and focus only on the looks. Why?

Yes, AliCat, this language of Jordan being this "gorgeous", incredibly good-looking boy is the Chandlers' narrative with the clear implication that he must have been irresistable for Michael. So be careful of the language you use and of the narrative you embrace. There is no evidence whatsoever that Michael looked at Jordan as "gorgeous" or found his looks desirable or wanted to look like him. Those suggestions all come from the Chandlers and haters. Michael had no problem with how he looked as a child as evidenced in the fact that huge photos of himself as a child of about 13 years old were on the walls of his office at Neverland (it can be seen in the footage of the Neverland search). He had problems with how he looked when he started to get pimples etc. - like Petrarose said.
 
Last edited:

Electro

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,308
Points
0
Location
East Germany
Sorry, but there is nothing "neutral" in what Aphrodite Jones said. She did not just say "I did not investigate or research the 1993 case so I'm not going to comment on that". This is what would have been fair and neutral. But she did not say that. What she basically said was "I did not research the 1993 case but I think MJ was in love with Jordan." WTF? This is not fair or neutral at all! Especially when she says she bases this opinion on June Chandler's testimony. Have you read the part about June's testimony in Aphrodite Jones' book? There she does not give the impression at all that June was in any shape or form a compelling witness. On the contrary. So saying now the opposite is pretty interesting, to say the least. I don't know how you get the idea that this somehow makes her look "neutral". It just makes her look flip-flopping. By the way, had she researched the 1993 case (which she admittedly did not) she could have found that Jordan's own words in his 1993 interview with Dr. Richard Gardner contradict the story that Aphrodite Jones finds "unnerving" in June's testimony. But if she was lazy to do that research she should not have made such a comment that "MJ was in love with Jordan". This does not make her look neutral, just ignorant.
Nor does calling a the questioner condescendingly "honey-bunny" make her look any more professional or neutral.

Well, ok. I missed/forgot about the "maybe in love" bit from Aphrodites interview.
I only reported what T-Mez said about her in this new interview.

But i agree that that's not really neutral, although it's also not like she said that she believes that Michael is guilty of the 1993 alligations. "In love" can mean just that. Let's not overanalyse it.
She did too much good, to be hanged for that short comment now.

I can still sense that the motivation for that probably is that she is feeling the pressure to being labeled as an MJ fan rather than a journalist. (Like T-Mez described it.)
 
Last edited:

MJMarty

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,173
Points
48
Location
Ireland
Finished the second half of this today. I can't help but always enjoy Mez's objectiveness towards Michael, he could have become a confidant to Michael after the trial but had no interest in trying to get money or fame from leeching off of him. He sees things crystal clear - not through the eyes of a hater or an MJ fanatic, he has zero ulterior motive. He's said so many times that he apprehensively took Michael's case unsure about his innocence until he really examined things as the excellent lawyer he is and realized Michael was being extorted by people using the Arvizos almost as much as they used Michael. I commend that he speaks his opinions to the fans that clearly disagree with him too, especially in his opinion about wanting to leave Murray alone (albeit when he shuts his trap for money) and hope he just gets on with life to support his children and try do something meaningful with the rest of his time.

Also, am I the only person who cringed into infinity when the first caller wanted to "become friends" and meet with Mez and he really skillfully let them down without actually saying it?!
 
Last edited:

Petrarose

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
9,574
Points
0
^I did not cringe, but just felt I understood her state of mind. She feels bad about not being able to help Michael, and you can see this is eating her up. In her emotional state, she wants to be close to someone who knew, respected, and helped Michael, so she wants to be friends with Mez. I think he understood it for what it was and dealt with it properly. It is like the girl who asked Michael to marry her during the Invincible signing. I am sure Michael and Mez met a lot of people who make what we would call inappropriate statements.
 

jamba

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
1,261
Points
0
Location
usa
Finished the second half of this today. I can't help but always enjoy Mez's objectiveness towards Michael, he could have become a confidant to Michael after the trial but had no interest in trying to get money or fame from leeching off of him. He sees things crystal clear - not through the eyes of a hater or an MJ fanatic, he has zero ulterior motive. He's said so many times that he apprehensively took Michael's case unsure about his innocence until he really examined things as the excellent lawyer he is and realized Michael was being extorted by people using the Arvizos almost as much as they used Michael. I commend that he speaks his opinions to the fans that clearly disagree with him too, especially in his opinion about wanting to leave Murray alone (albeit when he shuts his trap for money) and hope he just gets on with life to support his children and try do something meaningful with the rest of his time.

Also, am I the only person who cringed into infinity when the first caller wanted to "become friends" and meet with Mez and he really skillfully let them down without actually saying it?!

In Sullivan's book (and we know T Mez spent time with Sullivan and helped with parts of that book related to the allegations and trial in 05), Mez says he stopped working as MJ's attorney b/c he was "really tired" of dealing with 1) Raymone Bain and 2) Grace Rwaramba (sp?). He said they were fighting over MJ re who had the tightest connection/access!
 
Top