violetblues said:

yes alot of what he went through is sad but i don't think he had mental problems,he did have some problems from past experiences and i think he was a bit paranoid as well...he had evety right to be he's worth alot.
[Edited 9/26/09 21:26pm]

This just makes me sad. I can relate in a way

he totally had mental problems, body dysmorphia (sp) at the very least i think most people would agree on that

mimi07 said:

Maladjustment disorders stemming from negative past experiences and paranoia would qualify as a "mental problems".

dearmother said:

How many of us here have "mental problems"? I know I do!

WildStyle said:

PDogz said:

Yeah,

Many things seem weird from our perspective, but I guess they are not weird from his perspective.
Of course, he didn´t like going to strip bars. He spent most of his childhood there, I am not sure if anyone of us has ever experienced people fainting meeting you? How can we judge that?


Anyways,listening to the tapes and I really don´t udnrestand the hype about it. He spoke about all those things million of times before. There´s nothing new.

PDogz said:

Yep, I agree with this.

PART 6 made me tear up .... not to question the vitiligo but clearly his own face disturbed him , he never knew how handsome he is (yes I said is ) for the simple face his image will always be around.

mimi07 said:

Where is part 5/6 of the tapes, where he talks about Madonna and other women?

The MJ tapes are an interesting glimpse into the later years of MJ.

A couple of things I got out of it:

1) AS other posters have said, he did have some degree of body dysmorphia.

This (for me anyways), explains the excessive plastic surgery. I don't think he was trying to make himself white so much so as it was to erase looking like his dad. Being a shy kid who became an icon that was denied a childhood through
a task master/abusive dad must have destroyed his confidence in the years he needed it the most.

2) He was obviously scarred from the 1993 allegations. Despite the albums and music that came after this traumatic time in his life, he felt betrayed by the media.

For those of us who remember and lived through Michael mania in the 1980's, he was untouchable to a very large degree. Eccentricities aside, MJ was almost God like in the reverence from the media and the masses. With that being said...

3) MJ had some interesting paranoias (with women),companions (mannequins) and delusions (of his music's healing abilities) that makes one question the price of fame.

These things aside, he was naive in his of adult human relaionships, which led to a string of ass kissers, shady business men, and "friends" that could only see $$ when they "befriended" MJ. As weird as it may sound, I almost understand the whole "Peter Pan" thing he was feeling.


4) As it relates to the Rabbi's intentions, if MJ gave him his consent to record, he obviously knew at some point this would become public knowledge. What the Rabbi is doing is no different than what AEG, Sony, and other media outlets have done since MJs death.

From a purely business perspective, the MJ death and pending movie are all very relevant and timely, so as long as his name is out for public consumption, money will be made for years to come.
[Edited 9/27/09 6:29am]
[Edited 9/27/09 6:30am]

whatsgoingon said:

did u watch the videos? it's there

here's the article i was talking about from Fox news in 2002



N.Y. Times Gives Jackson's Ex-Rabbi Another Shot

I am sad to say I read yesterday's story in the New York Times about Shmuley Boteach and got a little ill.

Samuel Freedman, a good reporter, writer and author of interesting books, evidently was sold a bill of goods on Boteach. His report on Shmuley's WWRL radio show with Peter Noel made it sound like Michael Jackson's onetime rabbi was on the up and up.

But readers of this column know otherwise. Back on May 23, 2001, we revealed the truth about the "Kosher Sex" rabbi who started a bogus charity with Jackson.

To this day there has no been no accounting for the money Boteach and Jackson raised for their Time for Kids/Heal the World Foundation. Indeed, the event they held on Feb. 14, 2001, at Carnegie Hall — a symposium on children — has never turned up in tax returns.

London newspapers reported that Boteach was ousted from the L'Chaim Society of Oxford University for mismanagement of funds. (He allegedly used money from the charity to maintain a lavish home. Boteach insisted it was his right to do so.) He was also reportedly banned from having a pulpit in the U.K., although during our conversation last year he denied that.

The New York Times also didn't bother to look into the infamous L'Chaim Society, Boteach's New York charity.

The most recent tax return available, which covers all of 2000, states that the New York edition of L'Chaim Society took in $203,185 in donations but paid out $240,164 "for administration." There are no funds listed for "Program Services."

In May 2001, this column discovered quite a lot about the so-called Oxford L'Chaim Society of New York, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Oxford University in Great Britain.

I wrote: "In 1999, the British government criticized (Boteach's) L'Chaim Society of Oxford, London and Cambridge — an organization that was supposed to support and promote Jewish thinking and life on the Oxford campus — when they discovered that Shmuley (his name is Shmuel but he loves the nickname) had been dipping into the funds.

In an e-mail to the Oxford Union, Sonia Tugwell of the Charity Commission wrote on January 8, 2001: "In August 1999, the Charity Commission opened an inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993 into the L'Chaim Independent Charitable Trust as a result of concerns that the charity's funds were being misapplied.

"The inquiry established that a number of apparent inappropriate payments were regularly being made by the founder of the charity, Rabbi Boteach and his wife. Fundraising costs and administrative expenses were high in relation to relatively low charitable expenditure.

"As a result of the inquiry, in March last year, the trustees of the charity, after taking appropriate legal advice, reached an agreement with the Boteaches. The result of this was that a sum was paid by them to the charity. The trustees of the charity decided to wind up the charity and the London and Oxford offices were closed last year with our approval. It was agreed that the assets of the Cambridge Society would be transferred to another trust. If there are any funds remaining after outstanding liabilities have been paid, these will be given to other charitable causes similar to those supported by the L'Chaim Independent Charitable Trust."

An article dated June 1, 1998, in the London Daily Telegraph clearly states: "Ah Shmuley. The shame, the disgrace. (He's been) publicly reproached by Elkin Levy, president of the United Synagogues; forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preaches, accused of conduct unbecoming, bringing the rabbinate into disrepute." The resignation was apparently in response to the publication of Boteach's controversial book, "Kosher Sex," which has been a bestseller and was excerpted in Playboy.

"It seems funny to me," said a source at the Oxford Union, "that the headquarters for the L'Chaim Society of Oxford is in New York."

Frustrated by the lack of information from Boteach's office, I subsequently wrote another story on Feb. 18, 2002, stating that Boteach's tax-free foundation in the United States is alled Oxford L'Chaim Society, implying a tie to the prestigious British university.

I also wrote that the L'Chaim Society's 1999 public tax filing shows that the charity took in $300,000. Of that amount, $160,000 went to "management" and $122,000 was sent as a lump-sum donation to the L'Chaim Society of Cambridge, the other top British university.

But, of course, representatives of the Cambridge Society swore to me last year that they hadn't heard from Boteach in a long time. Certainly they didn't mention a huge donation, and neither did Boteach.

Even so, more than half the money collected by Boteach in 1999 went to salaries. Less than half was donated to charity. Just in case you were wondering.

mimi07 said:

I did, there are only 5 parts out of 6 up.

mimi07 said:

Excellent job retrieving this article. Though as convoluted as this whole issue seems to have been, do we know Michael was any less involved in this missing money than the Rabbi?

That was a great article and it just confirmed what I already knew...that Joe Jackson was a complete asshole and is the reason that Michael had issues.

vainandy said:

Yeah, that whole part about how Joe made a ritual of rubbing oil all over Michael's, and the other kids, nude bodies before he beat them with an ironing cord sounded more than a little sadistic to me, and by itself probably qualifies as sexual abuse. Can't imagine he DIDN'T have a hard-on while he was doing that.

But it was a strip club where drag queens were stripping. She could obviously see he was gay but she went about it the wrong way. Hell, he was damn near a drag queen himself so the last thing he would want to see is something that looks like a woman stripping. Hell, that would be dyking.

She should have just tried to have taken him to a normal gay club and not even let on that she might think he's gay himself. They could just go to be "exploring" different nightlife. Once he got in there and some good looking grown men approached him, he might turn them down the first few times but I guarantee you, he would have eventually have given in. And once he got some good grown dick, he would have kicked Disneyland, the kids, and his father completely to the curb.

It's very apparent that he was gay but he would never come out of the closet or even admit it to himself because he was scared to death of his father, even as an adult. And that's not even getting into to that religion he was a part of. Madonna could have really turned him out but she went about it totally wrong.

And let Joe tell it, he simply spanked them with the belt, which would have been totally fine (only if they did something worthy of being punished and not for missing a dance step). I knew that "spanking them with a belt" story was a bunch of bullshit. Michael wouldn't be so deathly afraid of him if that were simply the case.

vainandy said:

vainandy said:

Clifton Davis had already long since introduced Michael to "some good grown dick". Apparently, it didn't work, lol.

This is yet another so-called friend cashing in. I will believe that MJ consented to this publication when I see his signature on a contract.

This guy billed himself as Mike's "spiritual advisor" during their friendship. I would think that an ordained Rabbi should keep some things confidential even after the death of the person they supposedly advised in a spiritual capacity.

This is highly unethical and I hope the estate sues the crap out of this charlatan.

If he was gay, why would he have Playboy magazines that were found? No, I don´t believe it.

Anyway, I was just wondering if the tapes have not been edited again to make them more sensational. It easily could have been cause you hear just sentences and than comments by the reporter and Schmuley. It´s sad Mike is not here to hear it. Maybe he´d feel Schumley betrayed him the way bashit did cause, for examples, it looks as if Mike saw his art as something almost religious saying people were going different coming out of the concert than coming in.
Here he talks about this as well, but not just about HIS concerts and music but art in GENERAL!
It begins at 4:35.

[Edited 9/27/09 14:05pm]

dag said:

Read my post above yours....

dag said:

...for the same reason EVERYONE looks at Playboy; for the articles! (...just yanking your chain - I know you're Michael's #1 Fan & defender on The Org, and my heart still goes out as much to you as to his family).

You're the second person I've heard mention Clifton Davis. A friend of mine who is from California said that a lot of the queens out there used to talk about Clifton being rough trade and beating his sexual partners. I've never heard anyone else mention gay and Clifton Davis in the same sentence though.

PDogz said:

yeah WTF if this is true its srsly fucked up

i don't think mj was gay. bi maybe.

also the fact that he refers to going to his concerts is like a religious experience just confirms that he's a narcissist.

vainandy said:

I was actually living in Hollywood during the time the "Michael & Clifton" rumor was going around, with certain "connections" within the industry. And as rumors go, this one was widely regarded as having some truth to it. And the two were behaving very suspiciously in regards to it. But in the end, I will concede that rumors are just that: rumors. (...however, for whatever it may be worth, it's a rumor that I always believed - as it's statistically impossible for ALL rumors to be false - eventually, certain shit WILL leak).