(Last updated 5-5-2012) -- THIS PAGE MAY BE UPDATED AS NEEDED.
When I started this blog, my
content about Michael Jackson was a little different and all over the place.
After a while, however, I homed in on what I felt was the most important
aspects of his life about which those interested in him would care to know.
As the writer of and researcher
for "Desiree speaks...so listen...",
when people come to my website, there are certain entries that I feel are not
only the most pertinent to know by virtue of the fact they overfloweth with
information but that they are the most
illustrative to an understanding of
Michael Jackson—his life and his behavior.
The following represents a list
of what I'd want you to know of, at the
very least, when you leave DSSL. THIS PAGE MAY BE UPDATED AS NEEDED.
A NOTICE to
readers!
If you plan on reading "Desiree speaks...so
listen..."—especially the posts in the following list—you
should be aware of how to read this
website, specifically, how to take in the content by evaluating the
information in context.
HOW TO THINK ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON
This is not so much a handy list of "how-to's"
as it is a general, simple idea broken down into a few parts. They will work
in all situations when critical thinking is required. Most importantly, they
work well with the DSSL blog.
1.
Reject (or, at the very least, quiet)
previous beliefs. Original learning is always done with an
open-mind but, in the case of Michael Jackson, he is not new; often, the
weight of his public persona impacts the way any of us view him. When reading
about anyone's story, we should evaluate them away from any biases or
preconceived notions; that is how this blog transformed into what it became:
by viewing Jackson with an open-mind, I only followed the trail of the
evidence and reported what I found. For example, Jackson is a stratospheric superstar,
talented artist, and, possibly, a musical genius. Because of these
credentials, it's hard for many people to imagine him doing any wrong, such
as abusing young boys. But consider actions away from biases and what does
one often see? If they are truly thinking without any bias, they will accept
that Jackson—like any of us—is capable of anything (call this "The First
Step").
2.
Consider the whole.
Whenever any single piece of information is considered alone, it is
easy to dismiss or accept; however, when you consider it along with related
information as a whole—rather than as disparate, independent pieces—you not
only are provided with a bigger picture, but also a more solid foundation on
which to base your dismissal or acceptance of the information. For example,
Jackson's owning of books featuring naked boys may mean little on its own
(for argument's sake) but when it is put together with other pieces of
information, such as consistently and insistently having sleepovers with boys
the same age as those nude in his books, as well as being accused of
molesting boys the same age as those nude in his books, Jackson's owning of
the books becomes much more significant.
3.
Evaluate contextually. A
core tenet of sociology is the idea of viewing things "in context";
this means that behaviors or actions or ideas meaningful in one setting may
not be meaningful in another—as it is said, "Everything works in theory
(out of context)." The rule follows that everything evaluated must be
from the proper perspective. For example, think of this Michael Jackson-related
question: is it "okay" for an adult to sleep with young boys? It is
not so simple to answer when no context is considered. It would be perfectly
acceptable for a mother or father to sleep with a young boy, the condition
("context") being that they are his parents. However, in the
context of Michael Jackson, who owned books featuring images of naked boys,
was rarely, if at all, seen with female companions (including little girls), and
was accused three times of child molestation, sleeping with young boys
doesn't seem like a good idea.
4.
Nothing in reality is ever perfect so
judge it based on its merits. (This goes nicely with #2 and #3.)
Should you believe Blanca Francia when she says that she heard two voices in
Jackson's shower, one definitely being Jackson and the other being a young
boy, as evidenced by a pair of boy's underwear on the floor? What about Ralph
Chacon's statement that he saw Jackson giving oral sex to Brett Barnes in the
pool showers? How about believing the claims of Jordie Chandler, especially since
he won a $25 million settlement? It would be reasonable to believe all of
this evidence against Jackson if the reality of "things not being
perfect" is accepted. In reality, witnesses have flaws and victims are
not always squeaky clean—these facts, however, in reality, do not make them
invalid as witnesses and victims. For example, Francia went on Hard Copy for $20,000 but still
received a settlement and didn't buckle under Jackson Defense questioning;
Chacon lost a lawsuit against Jackson, sold stories to tabloids, and called
Brett Barnes "Jordie Chandler", but he described Brett Barnes to a
T and authorities trusted his account to the point they went to Australia to investigate it;
and the Chandler clan didn't go to the police immediately upon finding out
Jordie was abused, but they did get a settlement that guaranteed Jackson
would pay or lose his assets. The point? No one is perfect, but that does not
make them untrustworthy.
5.
Nothing in reality is ever perfect so
judge it based on its merits—PROBABILITY. Will the sun
rise tomorrow? In reality, we don't know for sure, but not knowing perfectly and
completely does not mean we should let that doubt be anything more than a
fleeting thought! Probability laws dictate that every event has a likelihood
of occurring between 0 (0% chance of happening) and 1 (100% chance of
happening). These laws also state that even things considered most likely to
occur will never occur with a certainty of 1, such as the sun rising in the
morning each day. Even more so, these laws state that with certain
conditions, likelihood increases or decreases. For example, what is the
likelihood of a man being a pedophile conditional upon him being accused of
pedophilia, owning books made and owned by pedophiles, having young boys as
constant companions, and an addiction to sleeping in the bed with kids? This probability,
based on typologies created by pedophilia experts and law enforcement, is NOT
1 but it is close to 1, so close that the probability of this man being a
pedophile is high enough to believe he is one. And what about the probability of
being a pedophile given thrice-accused? Not a perfect 1 but damned near close
to it.
6.
ABOVE ALL ELSE, this is not a United
States court of law, so Jackson is NOT to be afforded "Reasonable
doubt" or "Presumption of innocence". If you're
going to read DSSL, you must understand that there are no holds barred, and
the evidence presented here, along with its discussion, is not restricted for
or molded to fit an adversarial justice system. Michael Jackson will be
scrutinized and, as much as a defendant is always allowed to "maintain
innocence", he will, in at least equal measure, have to defend his
innocence. That is how it works in the real world. For example, it is
reasonable to hold the belief someone is a pedophile if they are constantly
accused of it—it would be irrational to reject that belief for a
"presumption of innocence" for the accused!
If all of the above are followed when reading this website, you will
have a much more satisfactory experience with the information presented here,
not to mention, you will have made yourself smarter and more rational for it.
At the end of the day, everything can be said more simply: "Use
common sense."
|
Entry title
|
Why you ought to know it
|
Was Michael Jackson a
pedophile? By far, the strongest evidence in support of this is the $25
million settlement Jackson made with Jordie Chandler in 1994 over the boy's
claims that he'd been sexually abused. Settlements typically are made in
order to keep matters from going to court or to keep information from going
public; they also make the one offering the settlement look as if they have
something to hide. Why did Jackson settle, especially when he claimed he was
innocent? According to the actual
language in the settlement papers, Jackson not only decided to settle
Chandler's claims under his own free will, he also paid the settlement with
his own money. The question is, "Why settle for such a large sum if
you're innocent?" Maybe because he wasn't.
|
|
Jackson's mysterious
sexuality has been an interest to many people wanting to know: Was he gay? Was
he straight? Was he a pedophile? We can never know for sure but there exists reasonable suspicion that Jackson had
sexual interests in males: DNA analysis of semen samples found on
his mattress, in a bed sheet, and in a pair of underwear kept with his own
underwear containing semen uncovered the semen of 3 different males.
|
|
A follow-up to and full analysis
of the previous post, it not only clarified the findings of semen stains of 3
different males, it placed them into context with all of the other reasonable suspicion that Jackson was a homosexual,
including gay rumors, his strange and short marriage to Lisa Marie Presley,
and the real meaning behind his pornography collection.
|
|
This important post examined
Jackson's past, since what is in our past often impacts and influences what
is in our futures. According to various accounts, Jackson was not only a
victim of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, he was also sexually abused.
Could it be that Michael Jackson's sexual abuse history led him to
sexually abuse young boys?
|
|
Jackson's main companions
always appeared to be young boys between the ages of 10 and 14, and many
people have wondered, "Where are the little girls?" One little
girl, a member of a family Jackson was friends with for years, wrote Jackson
a note in distress: she told him she
knew he did not like her as much as he liked her brothers because she was a
girl, and she knew Jackson did not like girls as much as he liked boys.
|
|
Witnesses claiming to have
seen Jackson act in strange and untoward manners with young boys have often
been jeered as "liars" because, in addition to telling their
accounts to police, they also sold them to so-called "tabloids".
Because of this, some doubt their stories without a second thought. However, there was one witness to Michael
Jackson's behavior with 'special friends' who'd never sold her story to the
press, only telling it to police: she claimed Jackson was a
"chickenhawk", slang for pedophile.
|
|
Were Jordie Chandler, Gavin
Arvizo, and Jason Francia the only victims of Michael Jackson? The answer
seems to be no. Although
Australian-born Brett Barnes claims he was never molested, evidence exists to
the contrary: witnesses, including Jordie Chandler, as well as Brett's own
testimony and that of his mother and sister, say he was. A couple on a train
reported to the FBI that Brett and Jackson were in a cabin making noises so
strange and disconcerting that they alerted the train's conductor. Who should
we believe: Brett Barnes or the evidence?
|
|
Pop singer Aaron Carter was
one of the numerous boys who befriended Michael Jackson when he was a teen.
After Jackson died, Aaron gave a
startling account of he and Jackson's friendship when he was just
15-years-old: Jackson gave him alcohol; they smoked weed together; and
Jackson tried to creep into his bed while he was sleeping. Aaron Carter's
account helpfully demonstrated a pedophile's pattern: sleepovers, drugs, and
alcohol.
|
|
Jimmy Safechuck was another
'special friend' taken in by Jackson. Although he never officially claimed
that Jackson molested him, witnesses, including PR man Bob Jones and
secretary Jolie Levine, claim to have seen behaviors that challenge the boy's
position. Jimmy may have never accused Jackson of abuse but Jackson gave his parents an enormous
check, which was seen by La Toya Jackson—why? Jackson defense attorney Tom Mesereau claimed that Jimmy was
married at Neverland Ranch, which would make it seem as if Jimmy was just an
'innocent pal' of Jackson's; however, no evidence exists to support
Mesereau's story, including the fact Jimmy got married to another woman in
Chicago. Why the lies? It seems there is more to Jimmy-and-Jackson than
meets the eye.
|
