Originally, Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask, An Insider's Story of the King of Pop, by 30-year Jackson PR man Bob Jones (who was fired unceremoniously last year by Michael's brother Rand) and journalist Stacy Brown, was scheduled to be published in April.
It now appears that the King of Pop—a sobriquet Jones himself concocted—can thank his lucky stars for the publication delay. According to Fox News's Roger Friedman, who has spent much of the trial belittling the charges against Jackson, the Jones book will be a devastating blow to Jacko and those who hold out for his "childlike innocence."
"Michael had a sinister gift for identifying these boys; it was as if he had some sort of radar. I was continually amazed by how he could determine which of the many children he came into contact with might be 'woo-able,' whose parents could be bought off and counted on to keep quiet about what was going on. I came to understand that Michael manipulated people and events with a great deal of finesse," Friedman quotes the book, which also "details Jackson's trips abroad in the late '80s and early '90s, before the famous Chandler family settlement, with boys who were essentially his dates."
More: "One kid [name changed], with whom Michael managed to carry on a clandestine relationship for years… Michael and [the boy] spent nearly all of their time together."
Another boy described is Brett Barnes, who denied any wrongdoing by Jackson in the trial. "All of us, including the State Department official and Jet magazine Publisher Bob Johnson, saw the boy enter Michael's private bedroom numerous times and remain for a long time. Characteristically, Michael did whatever he wanted to — hang the risk."
Friedman also writes, "while Jones' book may be discounted by Jackson's current PR people as the work of a disgruntled employee, I got this reaction today from an insider who took a look at Jones' copy: 'He's telling the truth,' my source said, shaking their head."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Spencer
Man, not being a fan myself I am growing more and more tired of ppl using this man's name to make money... They should really get a job and earn their moeny decently
2 - reeya
If this guy knew oh so much, for so many years, and has evidence that prooves MJ molested these kids then why didn't he go to the authorities from the start? I think all these people, adults - who claim to have witnessed MJ commiting crimes should take responsibility too. I don't buy a word of his crap -America is a sick society who read too much into an innocent action.
3 - Eric Olsen
or it's a nation willing to look the other way while the rich, famous and powerful get away with, if not murder, then certainly actions we mere mortals would not get away with
4 - pex
Sick liers.
"The king of Pop" title comes from Elisabet Tyler.
5 - Eric Olsen
Does Taylor claim this?
6 - Peter
In fact, he isn't telling anything new, just adding a "sinister" here and a "bizarre" there. We already knew that Jackson prefers to socialize with youngsters. Everything else is interpretation, exaggeration and innuendo by Jones.
7 - P
The 'King Of Pop' title came from Elizabeth Taylor. And why if this man is telling the truth, did he feel guilty and say that Michael DID NOT lick the boy on the head at the trial??? It wasn't until he was confronted with an email that he agreed to it. This book, and all the nonsense inside it, were created to make money off MJ, that's it. Only a gullible idiot would believe it.
8 - Peter
I feel Jackson is so charismatic that when he cuts ties with people they feel betrayed and get to actually hate him. They do anything to gain his attention again even if it is smearing his name.... Something in this line has happened to Friedman. He flips from pro-Jackson to anti-jackson in an abvious attempt to socialize with him.
9 - Peter
BTW, it was Jones who admitted on the stand that he would embellish things for the book just to make more money with it.... I am sure that someone has the transcripts here.
10 - Wes
so the question is then, why did he remain silent for all those years fully aware of criminal behavior potentially going on? by standing by and doing nothing was he not enabling his own allegations to take place? ex-employees writing slanderous stories about michael jackson after getting cut from the payroll is nothing new if you've followed jackson's life. and nothing about this is any different, no matter how long jones has known jackson. in fact, the longer he knew him, the closer he was, the more chances he had to stop him from doing what he now alleges or to report it to authorities. and it'd be easier to take any allegation seriously if every time someone made one they didn't go running to a publisher or tabloid to sell those allegations to the highest bidder. are any of these "heroes" brave enough to tell the truth when the crime allegedly takes place and not try to seek some kind of profit it from it? doesn't appear so thus far
11 - Jose
"or it's a nation willing to look the other way while the rich, famous and powerful get away with, if not murder, then certainly actions we mere mortals would not get away with"
I don't think you are right here, Jose. I have followed the trial closely and truth is the accusations don't make sense, the timeline of the alleged molestation is more than absurd, it is almost imposssible, and the family is highly dubious.
What you may not be considering is that if he wasn't michael jackson and there wasn't the possibility to win millions with them, these allegations probably wouldn't have been made in the first place.
12 - Nick
I am glad to see that, unlike Eric, a few people here have enough common sense not to give too much credit to the latest dodgy story published by one of the prosecution's dodgy witnesses !
As Mesereau pointed out during the trial "When Jones had financial trouble, there was head licking and as soon as he did not have any financial trouble anymore, the head-licking disappeared".
13 - Eric Olsen
good points all: clearly all who saw these things and didn't report them didn't want to be cut out of the action, but this certainly calls into question their reliability after the fact.
I don't know what the book says beyond the quotes, so I don't see how it can be judged in advance either way. Dismissing the book out of hand because Jones is a former employee is no more logical than dismissing the molestation charges made by Gavin Arviso just because his mother is a con artist and liar: they both can be true.
My main point was that Friedman, who has been in MJ's corner for most of the trial, now suddenly sits up and takes notice about this particular book - why?
14 - Nick
Because he does not want to be cornered as a Jackson supporter. He is like politicians : He tries to get attention from a broad clientele !
15 - Peter
"is no more logical than dismissing the molestation charges made by Gavin Arviso just because his mother is a con artist and liar: they both can be true."
You are purposedly avoiding to mention the facts that the timeline doesn't make sense and that not only the mother but the three siblings have been caught lying on the stand repeatedly and have admitted lying in previous legal proceedings.
16 - jarboy
Jose wrote: I don't think you are right here, Jose. (#11)
What's up, bro, you having an argument wit your own damn self?
17 - Eric Olsen
I was a bit perplexed by that myself
18 - td
The way I look at it, his motivation for writing the book is the same movtivation for not saying anything.
Money.
He doesn't care about the kids, all he cares about is the money. That's why he turned a blind eye when he was with MJ, and MJ was no doubt paying him a nice six figure salary. Now that he's been fired, he's willing to tell his story to make more money.
Of course, he might embelish his story to sell a few more books, but if he tells lies that can be proven untrue then he CAN be sued.
And this is why I don't buy all the BS about the people who testified against MJ. What is their motivation for lying? The only explanation for most would be spite over being fired. Other than the family, and a few high profile people like this guy, most are not going to write books. And at most they might get a few thousand from tabloids. In exchange they are risking being charged with contempt and going to jail. I honestly don't see the motivation.
So basically, you are left with Gavin's word vs. MJ's word. And the fact is, either could be lying. Gavin might lie because he want's the money. And MJ might be lying because he doesn't want to be caught for molesting kids.
Except only Gavin had the balls to take the stand and face the scrutiny of lawyers. So even if the testimony of a 15 year old was not perfect, it was still better than MJ's lack of testimony.
If MJ isn't lying, and he's completely innocent as he protests, then why didn't he take the stand? What does he have to hide?
19 - Eric Olsen
pretty good analysis, although it is very common for defendants to not take the stand, and in this case it was entirely predictable since Jackson is so unpredictable. I'm sure Mesereau had visions of the legal equivalent of the "baby dangle" dancing in his head every time he considered putting MJ on the stand.
20 - Cerulean
Eric, it's not ok to print the last name of a child molestation victim. If a child close to you got molested, I'm sure you'd appreciate that there are laws and customs in place to protect victims of sex crimes.
If this guy saw all of this I wish that he would have gone to the authorities and also quit. There's a surprising number of people who will just keep working in an environment where children are being molested. They are missing some pieces for sure.
21 - Eric Olsen
Cerulean, there are no laws about printing the names, just custom. The names are all over the media outside the U.S., are used in open court, are used by some U.S. media, are all over the Internet of course, AND the boy appeared and was named in "Living With Michael Jackson," which a few-hundred million people saw across the earth.
So, I don't use the names willy nilly, but I don't pretend I don't know them either.
My final decision is based upon the names being used openly in court - if they weren't used in open court I wouldn't print them.
22 - Vicky
It seems like Jackson surrounded himself with people who could be bought, including Jones.
The most conclusive evidence is that of the earlier victim who testified, whose mother was Jackson's maid. That, and common sense. It's not just that Jackson slept with little boys. It's that he didn't sleep with anybody else. As prosecutor Zonen said in his closing argument, "We're being asked to believe that Jackson is non-sexual."
23 - Eric Olsen
excellent last point Vicky
24 - michele
While I'm disheartened that so many who witnessed Jackson's behavior with boys never intervened, as long as they were making a good living, I still believe where there's a lot of smoke, there's a big fire.
The one credible person in the mix with Bob Jones is Stacy Brown, who is quite responsible, and seems to be very credible. While he still is sympathetic to Michael and his family, he also seems to verify Jones's accounts, and helped with the collaboration in this book.
I don't blame people for not wanting to believe Michael is doing these things, but, not everyone is lying. He's never had a normal adult relationship, and that would be okay if he really were a child-man, and truly innocent soul. But, a christ-like man, who was that pure, wouldn't be drowning in pornography of every ilk. That, alone, breaks the spell, and takes the mask of purity away for me. I had believed Michael was innocent of the 93 allegations, and continued to think he was wrongfully accused, but, the revelation of his prolific porn collection has dispelled these myths.
We may be witnessing one of the most corrupt individuals alive, and I don't think this trial scratched the surface of his depravity. I think he has slavish devotees and a nearly cult-like obedient following of those who would virtually kill for him. I think there are many other boys who were terrified of him, and their families would not offer their children back to Michael, even in pursuit of justice, because, they would never be free of him.
No matter what the outcome of this trial, the boy in question, will never be free. That's who this book should be dedicated to. The real victims. When we saw Michael turn into a monster in "Thriller" it is chilling to realize he was prophesising his evolution into a beast. I think he is demonic and evil. I hope he is stopped.
Even though Bob Jones has financial motives, his contribution to finally putting an end to Michael Jackson's evil empire, is well worth the price to read what he has to say. I will definitely buy his book.
25 - Joe
While I'm disheartened that so many who witnessed Jackson's behavior with boys never intervened, as long as they were making a good living, I still believe where there's a lot of smoke, there's a big fire.
==========================
Not always, especially when the 'smoke' is predicated on callous innuendos. This trial is all about conjecture. It has not proven that Michael Jackson is a molestor; neither has it shown that he is not one. It is as if things are back to square one. The man has an interest in children but is it all innocent? We may never know.
What the prosecution have tried to do -without DNA evidence- is to try and paint Michael Jackson as a calculating and piranhic paedophile. However, there is a problem with this. If he were as calculating and piranhic as they want us to believe, then he would have had more victims by now. Not only that, there was a hotline set up by Sneddon last year or so (I do not know if people remember that) and nobody came forward, not one kid. All we had in the court were the ‘usual suspects’. Disgruntled employees, thieves and gold-diggers. That is all.
Nonetheless, we heard from Jason though. Who could forget him? This is a guy who did not know he was molested until 1993 when the Jordy Chandler issue arose. This was a kid who said he was being over-tickled. Since when was tickling illegal? Who witnessed the tickling? Did he report the tickling to anyone? There are so many questions this case has not answered.
Star Arvizo claimed that there were no clocks at neverland, which is untrue. Bear in mind, he was the only one who witnessed the alleged molestation.
Firstly, he lied on the stand by saying the alarm didn’t go off. The DA played it off saying that the alarm was not loud or something along those lines. However, when the tape of the raid was played, you could hear the alarm blaring.
Secondly, these are street smart kids. If you messed with them, they would tell you where to go. I am disturbed by the fact that the kid did not at least yell or something. He said he just watched. Was he trying to take notes? Why would he watch something like that for so long? I mean, if I saw my brother was being molested, I would do something about it. However, they did not. These are street smart kids, not choir boys.
Not until 4 months (after they had denied any foul play) and only after they had met Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer, I believe, from the Jordy case) did they go to the police. I know that kids might not want to talk about something like this, but the mother was shopping around for lawyers, which was why Michael broke ties with them. Their history of frivolous allegations (ala JC penny) was brought to his attention and he had to stay away from them. It was at this point that they then went to the police.
Another thing that amused me was the elusive pattern the prosecution tried to create?
Grooming? Mac, Brett and Wade were allegedly groomed and the prosecution witnesses said that the kids were molested. All three guys denied this, on the stand.
What did Zonen do? He bombarded them with magazines and books asking them if they would be concerned if young children slept in the same bed with a man who owned such magazines. Now, owning those magazines are not illegal otherwise Michael would have been charged. The claim was that the boys were molested not that it would be wrong or immoral for a kid to sleep in the same with a man who owned such material. That was a bad attempt at a patch up job, by the prosecution.
In 10 years, are you saying that a calculative and piranhic pedo would only molest one child? Even though he CONSTANTLY surrounds himself with children? I find that to be quite problematic.
Moreover, the pattern could be that this is a confused and careless paedophile. One who cannot contain his impulses, one who takes risks. The problem with this is, if that were the case, he would have been caught a long time ago. If the sleepovers are the 'smoke', then he would have 'slipped' a long time ago.
Nonetheless, we have the rather bewildering timeline.
Michael Jackson was going through the toughest test of his career (at the time) after the Bashir interview. This kid had been seen with him in the interview and Bashir suspected something was up between them. If they proved that he molested the boy back then, Michael Jackson would be a goner but wait, the prosecution claim that Michael Jackson started molesting the boy after the show had aired, after the media circus began, after the authorities were on his back. That is just ridiculous.
Is Michael Jackson a calculative or careless paedophile? This case has not proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did Michael Jackson abuse Gavin?
This case has not proven that beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many inconsistencies. There is enough doubt to legally acquit.
Now to Bob Jones, if this man saw such things for so long then it says a lot about his character, as to why he is only coming out with this book during a time like this. This is a man who shot himself in the foot during his testimony. A man who basically agreed that his book was not 100 per cent factual or actual.
Michelle, I find it strange that you would readily believe that this boy is a 'real victim'. A street wise kid who would be molested and wait four months until he goes to the authorities, with his mother. A ‘real victim’ who seemed, on the stand, to be more irate about Michael deserting his family than with the molestation. One thing people are not even considering is this, if the boy was supposedly drunk and out of it then how could he remember the molestation in such graphic detail? This kid was obviously coached to say all the things he said and I am appalled that people would jump on the 'victim' bandwagon when so many kids are being molested and victimised daily and yet Paedophiles are not even prosecuted.
If Michael Jackson was John Doe, this case would not make the court. No DNA, inconsistent testimonies in the grand jury, what a recipe for a "Trial of the Century".