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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Nick
Hey Michele,
Just a few porn magazines are enough to convince you that somebody is evil ?
What is it with you and porn magazines Michele ? You kind of sound like a Bree to me, Michele.
There is nothing wrong with having porn magazines and wank twice a day (or even more). What else would you expect from a man who, as you pointed it, "never had a normal adult relationship". Is it forbidden to fantasize over a porn magazine ? Is it illegal to have a wank ?
Michele darling, be serious, will you ?
27 - MsTay58
If these people all knew this before hand and said nothing they are just as guilty, its all about the money. The parents are the ones behind this. But the biggest reason is the fact that Micheal owes 50% of the publishing catalog that has the Beatles records and for years Paul McCarthy is behind this, its to force the hand of micheal so he can get them back. I truly believe he has a hand in this just like he is a big investor in K-earth 101 which plays and talk beatles all the time. come on people use the Brain GOD gave you and read between the lines. Paul has a tour in Sept. of this year and he WANTS those records,NOW!!!
He is guilty just like the rest, there is not human love about this only the MONEY AND BEATLES RECORDS. The Rumors that I have heard about Paul McCarthy and the underhanded things he do to get what he wants, I'm begging to believe it.
28 - Eric Olsen
the "Beatles catalog" conspiracy is utter nonsense perpetuated by the Jackson camp to further obfuscate and divert attention
And whether or not this case "is all about money" has virtually nothing to do with whether or not Jackson molested the boy
29 - Nick
you would know Eric wouldn't you ?
30 - Eric Olsen
I guess
31 - salmoncatchingbear
michele, you made excellent points that i wholeheartedly agree with my dear. well said.
32 - td
The Beatles idea is just silly.
Jackson owns 50% of 100 songs. The other half is owned by Sony and they're the ones that makes decisions about what to do with the catalog.
MJ's 50% is worth approx. 200-250 million. More then McCartney can afford. So even if MJ has to sell the catalog to pay back the 270 million+ he owes to people, McCartney is not going to get the catalog back. It will be bought up by one of the major music publishers, and most likely this will be Sony. And even if Sir Paul could gather up enough cash to compete in the bidding, do you really think MJ is going to sell them back to him?
Therefore, Sir Paul has nothing to gain from your so-called conspiracy.
Also, your conspiracy theory would probably carry more weight if actually spelt his name right.
33 - Eric Olsen
it's actually about 200 Beatles songs, and quite a few other songs as well; but the Beatles songs are approx 75% of the catalog value
34 - Eric Olsen
actually, the more I think about what a lying, manipulative fucking asshole Jackson is, the more I want to se him convicted of SOMETHING, which is really what the jury is trying to figure out. All the charges are relatively weak individually because of lack of evidence, but I think the jury also knows that Jackson is a serial pedophile and is hesitant to let him off completely
35 - p
"actually, the more I think about what a lying, manipulative fucking asshole Jackson is"
I just KNEW you were a biased idiot. But yet you try to come across as if you're impartial. You do NOT need to be writing editorials in any way shape or form. Who do I need to contact to make this happen?
36 - p
Also you hardly know anything about the shit you type. 75% of the Beatles songs are owned by Jackson's side of the company. Jackson's 50% of the company is worth $400 million, not $200 million. Sony is the one that's trying to get the other half of the catalog not McCartney. Sony sabotaged the promotion of the Invincible album so that Jackson couldn't pay back his loans, and they also might be "encouraging" the DA in this current case with these allegations. This entire thing is about the MONEY whether you choose to believe it or not.
37 - p
Also, GREAT POST JOE. :-)
38 - jarboy
p -- editorials, by nature and definition, are supposed to take a position and defend it.
as for "great post joe": joe should write his own blog, no hijack someone elses. comments, by nature and definition, are brief.
39 - Eric Olsen
hey p, you can contact me to "make it happen" - I am the publisher
40 - Eric Olsen
the catalog is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and I believe the catalog is owned 50/50
The bottom line of Jackson is that, whether the prosecution proved its case on any of these charges, Jacko has had a series of inappropriate, dating-like, relationships with boys for almost 20 years. Do you approve of this? I think it makes him a manipulative fucking asshole.
41 - jarboy
eric, p does not need to be posting to this blog in any way shape or form. Who do I need to contact to make this happen?
42 - Eric Olsen
Thomas Sneddon
43 - Nick
Eric where does this anger come from ? And why are you so eager to see MJ convicted of something ? Did he molest you ?
44 - Nick
or do you wish he had ?
45 - Nick
whatever it is I think you owe us (Your fans) an explanation because now your credibility is in tatters, my dear !
46 - Joe
Just to clarify, "King of Pop" is actually a registered trademark owned by Johnson and Johnson, the makers of Vaseline.
47 - Nick
Well documented. Are you a consumer yourself ?
48 - Joe
No, just a stockholder, but your contributions to my fortune are appreciated.
49 - p
"Jacko has had a series of inappropriate, dating-like, relationships with boys for almost 20 years. Do you approve of this?"
He's slept in the same bed as kids. You call that "dating-like" relationships? That doesn't mean he's guilty of Molestation. If he really was doing something, and was so "manipulative" do you think he would have admitted that on national television??! Obviously he has nothing to hide. And when you were a kid did you not have sleep overs with your friends? I know I did, and we would all sleep in the same bed or on the floor. Jackson still views himself as a kid. He doesn't look at it from the same angle as you. He was born in a poor family, with 9 siblings who all had to sleep in a 2 bedroom house. They had to all share beds together, so for him it just seems natural. Just because the man's weird doesn't mean he's a pedophile. And I hope the Jury can see this.
50 - Mark Harrington
Eric,
You do not seek to back up your conviction against MJ. You even say that the charges are hard to prove because they are weak. You read the posts which tell you that MJ has not molested Brett Barnes, Mac Culkin etc following their own support of MJ. You hear about the riduculous prosecution witnesses, you hear about the lies, you are even aware of the charity work that Michael has been commited to for so long. Yet you show your true colours as somebody that has sold out his reasoning a long time ago.
I am frankly shocked after having read your blogs for some time in which you seemed to have a wise head on your shoulders. LETS HOPE YOU ARE MOLESTED!
51 - Mark Harrington
Scrap that last comment.
What I should have said was, Lets hope you are wrongfully accused of being a molestor.
52 - James Mclafferty
Eric:-),what's the matter mate?,you having a bad day or something?,it's not like you to lash out like that.A lot of people have looked up to you don't let them down now,i'm not criticising i'm just a bit taken aback.
53 - Mark Harrington
Below are some passages of things that Michael Jackson has said and written down in his life. It is these kinds of passages that should make us look at him and say, Pedofile? There just isn't a chance.
_______________________________________
"This Christmas I came back from (touring in) Japan and Elizabeth (Taylor) had decorated the whole house. It was wonderful. I'd never celebrated birthdays or Christmases before. Not one. It was always, Work! That's why I believe in Neverland. My fondest memory here was one night (when) we had a houseful of bald-headed children. They all had cancer. And one little boy turned to me and said, 'This is the best day of my life.' You had to just hold back the tears."
_______________________________________
"You know, when I was going through that bad period with my skin and my adolescent growth spurts, it was kids who never let me down. They were the only ones who accepted the fact that I was no longer little Michael and that I was the same person inside. I've never forgotten that."
________________________________________
"We have to heal our wounded world. The chaos, despair, and senseless destruction we see today are the result of the alienation that people feel from each other and their environment. Often this alienation has its roots in an emotionally deprived childhood. Children have had their childhood stolen from them. A child's mind needs the nourishment of mystery, magic, wonder, and excitement. I want my work to help people rediscover the child that's hiding in them."
________________________________________
"Children are God's gift to us. No -- they are more than that -- they are the very form of God's energy and creativity and love. He is to be found in their innocence, experienced in their playfulness."
_______________________________________
"And that's why I love children so much from being around them. I realize that many of the world's problems today, from the inner city crime to large scale wars and terrorism, and our over crowded prisons are a result of the fact that children have had their childhoods stolen away from them. The magic, the wonder, the mystery and the innocence of a child's heart are the seeds of creativity that will heal the world. I really believe that. What we need to learn from children isn't childish. Being with them connects us to the deeper wisdom of life which is ever-present and only asks to be lived. They know the way to solutions that lie waiting to be recognized within our hearts."
______________________________________
Lets just hope that MJ reaps the message from his song, Keep the Faith:
"Straighten out yourself, and get your mind on track. Dust off your butt and get your self-respect back. You've known me long enough to know that I don't play. Take it like you want it, but you got to keep the faith. Don't let nobody take you down. Just keep your eyes on the prize, and get your feet back on the ground. Keep the faith, baby, yea. Because it's just a matter of time before your confidence will win out. But till that day I said you've got to keep the faith."
Keep the faith because he will be vindicated.
54 - Joe
P, thanks for being appreciative of my effort. I am not sitting on the fence with this one. My personal feelings about Michael Jackson aside, this case does not hold any ground whatsoever and should have been thrown out.
It is funny how Eric could make such a statement like "I think the jury also knows that Jackson is a serial pedophile and is hesitant to let him off completely". Two ALLEGED victims in 10 years? A whole decade? A serial pedophile? That is the funniest thing I have seen here.
(the more I think about what a lying, manipulative fucking asshole Jackson is,)
For someone you do not know, that statement seems logical - if you were somewhat neurotic.
+==Comment 46 posted by Joe on June 8, 2005 02:56 PM:
Just to clarify, "King of Pop" is actually a registered trademark owned by Johnson and Johnson, the makers of Vaseline.==+
Even though I have no problem with you, I just have to make it known that you and I are two different people.
55 - Eric Olsen
bad day? perhaps
But what this stems from, I believe, is that over the course of the trial, in trying to cover the news more or less impartially (unless otherwise stated) I have been lulled into the minutiae of the trial itself -- evidence, testimony, he said-she said -- and I agree with all who say the prosecution case is relatively weak and Jackson could very well be found not guilty on all counts.
Most of the witnesses have possible ulterior motives, the Arvisos are scummy, etc.
This is all true, but it also loses sight of what is extremely obvious if one takes a step back and looks at the big picture: he has been commandeering boys and sleeping with them almost nightly for almost 20 years. There is no evidence he has ever had a sexual relationship with a woman. He has been having inapproriate relationships -- even if it is only emotional -- with boys for 20 years. Hence my contempt.
56 - James Mclafferty
Eric,:-),fair enough as i've said before i'm not going to judge somebody by their opinion,because opinions are usually tottally removed from the personality of the person to a certain degree.And i still think your site is cool but i just thought you went a bit over the top with your reply mate,bet you'll be glad when the case is over, i do still believe he is innocent though(sorry).
57 - Eric Olsen
my irritation is directed at Jackson, not those who believe he is innocent
58 - Eric Olsen
although, I think you have to admit the 100 in Santa Maria are somewhat unhinged
59 - James Mclafferty
Eric,i must admit giving your livelihood up to move to america from england for a trial(which some of them have done),is a bit over the top and slightly uneeded.But different strokes for different folks i suppose.We will know the outcome soon and will be able to put it all behind us which ever way it goes.Ever thought of doing blog on the upcoming superman film i'm a massive fan of them and would be interested to see if anybody knows how it's progressing.Keep up the good work.
60 - HW Saxton
Joe,Just why in the name of God would MJ
pay out an over $20 Million settlement
to quash one allegation (Jordy Chandler)
and several $Million in another to (the
housekeepers kid)keep that case out of
court as well? These are do not sound
like the actions of an innocent man I'm
sorry to say.
If he were "Innocent", then he could've
spent about 1/10th of the Jordy Chandler
settlement on an attorney to blast those
charges right out of court.Then,not only
would he have saved untold Millions in
hush money,he would also have gained the
public's sympathy by being someone who
had been unsucessfully victimized by con
artists out to take advantage of him.
In fighting and beating the charges, not
only would he have saved his reputation
but he also would have gained in record
sales and subsequent tours in support of
his new releases. At the least,he would
not have lost anything.He had everything
in the world to gain by doing this but
he chose not to. WHY? Innocent men don't
roll over and hand out $20 Mil like it's
nothing for NO reason at all.Then,he did
it AGAIN shortly thereafter. If you or
anyone else can give me just one logical
f**king answer to this I'll be so damned
happy that I might just lay down on the
living room floor and piss all the way
up to the ceiling.One logical answer is
all I ask.Nothing more and nothing less.
61 - Eric Olsen
piss to ceiling, eh HW? Very impressive. But remember: what goes up, must come down.
62 - p
Here's your logical answer HW. At the time of the allegations, MJ was at the height of his career. It was believed and consulted to him by his lawyers and friend Elizabeth Taylor, that doing a public trial could do more harm for his reputation than anything, and to just pay off the accusor because he could 'easily' make it back with record sales. Also one little known fact: Michael DID NOT pay this money out of pocket. His insurance company had to pay the 20 million dollars under a clause for "child endangerment", MJ never admited to molestation however. So basically he had a choice of being himiliated at trial and ruining his reputation(plus record sales) or letting his insurance company pay off the accuser. I think in hindsight he made the incorrect choice, but at the time can you blame him? He just didn't want to deal with it all. There is a clause that they couldn't discuss the details of the settlement. But I know he hates he did it, now that it's coming to bite him in the ass.
63 - Joe
HW, you make good points. However, I am commenting on this case and how the prosecution have handled it.
When you look at the Jordy thing, you think to yourself "why would he pay them out?" and that is a very valid thing to say. However, let us take a few steps back to the Jordy case. Why didnt it make the trial? People will have you believe that MJ settled it out of court. Fair enough, but let us look at it closely. A civil case and a criminal case are not the same thing.
Firstly, the criminal case collapsed because there was insufficient evidence. All they had to go by was the drug-induced "comments" the boy allegedly made. Now, there is a GQ article that practically blows the 1993 case out of the water and it will take too much time to analyse it.
To the settlement issue which is the point of contention here. Michael Jackson, at that time, was embarking on a tour of some sort and wanted to get back to his music. After the criminal case crashed, they went for a civil case which was settled out of court. It was during this time that Jason Francia first appeared and even though I am bemused as to why Michael settled, I can understand it. He wanted to place the emphasis back on his career and thought it would be slick PR, bad thinking. Those ghosts have come back to haunt him a decade later.
The media will have you believe that Jordy described Michael's private parts accurately but the cops think differently. Even though they had a warrant to take DNA samples of Michael, as well as pictures of him in the nude, the boy's image just did not correspond with those pictures.
I can now see where Eric is coming from, by the way.
64 - Mickey
Hehehe...looks like things are really hot in here....Mr.Eric , you knew what you were getting into when you took on the MJ case right ? I mean ..the Jackson fans can sometimes be as mentally unhinged as their idol...I just hope you got proper security at home ;)
65 - Nick
no need to be rude Mickey tut tut !
66 - Eric Olsen
thanks for not overreacting - going over the whole thing in my head yesterday I had a very strong wave of outrage about the things I stated and responded accordingly. I was also in a very crappy mood.
67 - james mclafferty
Had a feeling you were Eric,but everbody has off days and today's another day:)
68 - td
Concerning MJ's finances...
I did a bit more checking and confirmed most of what I originally thought.
Jackson owns 50% of the Sony/ATV catalog. The catalog is worth an estimated 400 million TOTAL. Therefore, Jackson's half is approx 200 million.
I was wrong about the number of songs, it is 250. And Sony doesn't control the publishing rights as I thought, Jackson sold control of the publishing to EMI for 50 million.
Along with Jacksons other catalog's his estimated worth is approx. 500 million. His estimated debt, is 400 million. This debt includes two loans amounting to 270 million that he secured using his Sony/ATV shares as colateral.
One of these loans, 200 million, is due in December and while MJ has significant assets, he does not have much in the way of liquid cash, therefore he will most likely have to sell some of his Catalogs in order to pay back the loan.
However, the chances of him selling them to Sony are slim. As I already stated, and supporters agree, he doesn't like Sony because he believes they underpromoted Invincible. Also, when his current deal with Sony/ATV is up he will most likely sign with another publisher. When this happens, he will take his share of the profits, and Sony/ATV as a company will suffer a bad financial years as a result, which will all but make it impossible for it to afford buying back his 50% share.
So in my opinion, I don't see any concrete reasoning for a Sony sabotage.
More likely is that after shelling out millions of dollars for MJ to make his album, they didn't want to waste anymore money. Sure they could have spent a few million more and maybe his album would have sold another million or so. But would it have sold 10 million? Not a chance.
Why? Because the music isn't cutting edge anymore, and MJ is not nearly as marketable as a personality. And that's without taking into consideration the current trial.
Earlier this year, indie artist Bright Eyes occupied the top 2 spots on the billboard singles chart. Without any help from a major label. The moral of the story....If the music is great, it will succeed regardless.
I'm not saying that the music is garbage. But it takes so much money to produce, promote, and put on tour, that it in the end, it's not profitable in comparison to other artists. And when Sony realised this, they pulled the plug.
How does this really effect the trial?
Well, regardless of whether you agree with how all this ^^^ unfolded or not, the pressure and stress it placed on MJ was enormous. This stress led him to further recluse himself at neverland, and IMO, pushed him once again to find sexual release with one of his younger companions.
69 - p
"Sure they could have spent a few million more and maybe his album would have sold another million or so. But would it have sold 10 million? Not a chance.
Why? Because the music isn't cutting edge anymore, and MJ is not nearly as marketable as a personality. And that's without taking into consideration the current trial."
Michael Jackson's album sold FIVE million worldwide and TWO million in the U.S. off ONE single. If that's not incredible, I don't know what is. All his previous albums he would release about 5 singles and videos. Invincible didn't sell as well, because it was under promoted. Period.
70 - Eric Olsen
p, that would only make sense if people didn't know who Michael Jackson was, and I believe they do. It didn't sell because it didn't capture the imagination of the public, for the reasons td stated quite well
71 - jarboy
all you avid mj supporters should read today's article in the ny daily news by stanley crouch (who happens to be an african-american), called the descent of michael jackson, in which he says:
This trial brought up questions about all this, but it seems to me that illusions of the man have been on trail along with Jackson himself. These illusions are grounded in what people assumed their relationship to Jackson was during periods of being enthralled by his music and videos. The amount of emotion we heap on our pop celebrities is suspect. People are not good guys just because they have ability.
72 - p
Uhhh, what's your point? I think he's a good guy for because of all the charities he's supported and the messages he sends through his music. He's got a guiness book of World Records for the most money given to charity by a music artist or something like that. Over 50 Million... Someone like this deserves the benefit of the doubt. And not to mention, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Although that ideal is going down the drown more and more as the days go by.
73 - jarboy
it ain't my point, sugar, it's stanley crouch's point. read his article and if you have any questions, ask him.
besides, people do good works don't always have good motives behind it.
74 - jarboy
people like michael jackson have to give huge ammounts to charity or get eaten up by income tax. and by appearing to be a great humanitarian, he buys himself cover for his pedaphilia. the hope is that people like little naive p will think, "Someone like this deserves the benefit of the doubt" grow up, p. there's lots of sickness in this world. mj dates and fucks little boys. get it?
75 - td
I'm not saying that 5 million albums sold is not a lot of sales.
What I am saying is that further promotion wouldn't have significantly increased those figures. And that's why Sony decided to stop promoting the album.
It's just basic math. Jackson sells 5 million records, but it costs 100 million to make the album.
Justin Timberlake also sold 5 million albums, but his only cost 10 million to make.
For Sony to have made a profit on the album it would have had to sell more than 6 million albums. When they saw that they weren't going to break even on the album, they stopped promoting it.
As I said, they could have spent another 10 million in promotion on the album, but then it would have had to sell 7 million to break even. Why take the chance.
And if you think that Invincible had the musical firepower to dominate like Thriller, or Bad, then you are crazy. The reviews were ok, but no way is MJ going to outsell artists in their primes like Eminem and Coldplay who were releasing critically acclaimed, grammy winning albums.
As far as giving someone the benefit of the doubt.....Are you saying that MJ should be treated diferently than the average Joe because he donates more money to charity? Bill Gates donates 10 times the money MJ donates, does that mean Microsoft should not be charged for using unfair business practices.
There are plenty of people who donate a greater percentage of their incomes to charity than MJ, but it doesn't mean they are absolved from criminal activity. The term "justice is blind" works both ways. An ex-con isn't presumed guilty when accused of a crime, and MJ isn't presumed innocent.