Please enable JavaScript in your browser preferences and then Reload this page!!!

Michael Jackson Justice: Michael and J. Randy Taraborrelli - Best Friends Money Can Buy

God: Reconnect to Him

The Conspiracy against God is about "The Word", and the profaning of His Holy Name within us. Adam fell in the garden, breaking the direct connection to God. Jesus, the "last Adam" was a quickening Spirit, the Word made Flesh, and the only one with whom we can re-establish our relationship with God. Michael's story is still unfolding. He is the one who is, is not. But Jesus is the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. Many are trying to rewrite HIStory. We were given a help to instruct us. Learn more "here".

Monday, July 19, 2010

Michael and J. Randy Taraborrelli - Best Friends Money Can Buy



July 19, 2010 - Michael and J. Randy Taraborrelli
The Best Friends Money Can Buy


Theme Tabloid Junkie (right click, open in new window then minimize to listen while you read)

Romans 13:9 - For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”



Of the many books out there on Michael Jackson, the one written by Mr. J. Randy Taraborrelli is one that makes me the most angry. Taraborrellie’s book, “The Magic and the Madness” in short, is a mini-novel length tabloid, written by a man who claims to have been one of his friends.

The article below was sent to me by a friend who wanted me to know exactly what Taraborrelli’s relationship with Michael was. (I already knew but never checked R.T.’s background. I just knew that Michael was not happy with him). First of all, anybody that writes for a tabloid (Dailymail or any other tabloid) would not be a friend of Michael’s.

The title of the Article by Taraborrelli on the Dailymail, is “'I saw in his eyes he was dying': Michael Jackson's life-long confidante J. Randy Taraborrelli tells the real story of star's fall”


Taraborrelli and Michael in the early '70's



The article states that Mr. Taraborrelli has been a friend and confidante of Michael’s for 40 years. This is a lie. Any friendship Taraborrelli was blessed enough to have had with Michael probably ended in 1991 when Taraborrelli published “The Magic and the Madness”. That would have taken almost 20 years off of their friendship.

The article also claims that Taraborrelli, in well published compassion for Michael, claims as he sat with the press corps on the other side of the Isle during the 2005 trial (this would be the non-friend section), he saw Michael toward the end of the trial, quoting the article below, Taraborrelli said -

“The real story as I saw it —besides the shocking testimony — was that he seemed to be dying in front of my very eyes. He was clearly in terrible pain, both physical and emotional.”

With friends like Taraborrelli, it is easy to see why. It was friends like this who put him there, in that court room. It was friends like Taraborrelli who fed the press. Taraborrelli was the press who’s career was built on Michael. Taraborrelli, when looking in a mirror, is blind in one eye, and can’t see out of the other.

How close were Taraborrelli and Michael Jackson? This should help you out:

J Randy Taraborrelli REFUSED a $2 million offer from Michael Jackson NOT to publish his book about him

This article include excerpts from the book that Taraborrelli wrote, and I warn you, they are disgusting. If Taraborrelli was truly Michael’s friend, wouldn’t Michael’s pleas alone be enough for Taraborrelli to scrap the book? What if Taraborrelli had said, “okay Michael” and accepted the two million dollars to scrap the book. Would that make Taraborrelli a friend? Why would Michael even have to make such an offer if they were friends?

Also, Michael’s lawyer asked Taraborrelli if he needed help fact-checking his book and offered to do it for him (at behest of Michael). Taraborrelli refused. Reference

Taraborrelli was 35 years old when this book was published. He wrote for the press. The fact that Taraborrelli turned down two million dollars (this is a new author, mind you), tells me that there was a bigger bankroll behind that book. Taraborrelli says in that excerpt above “I wouldn’t be bought”. I charge that indeed he could and that a higher bid was behind it. Remember, Bandier was still smarting from losing that bid with Michael over the ATV catalog in 1991. The campaign to smear him could have begun back as far as 1985 when Michael first bought the ATV catalog.

More curious is Taraborrelli’s friendship with Charles Thompson of the “CharlesTompson”. What in the world would Thompson have in common with Taraborrelli?

Is it conceivable that Sony could have financed “Michael Jackson – The Magic and the Madness”? It is an intriguing possibility. There is also a blog called the “Lowlynewshound”. He makes reference to his “source inside Sony”, especially in reference to the O2 Concerts. It could mean nothing, but it’s not a friendly blog by any stretch of the imagination. And anyone seeking information about Michael from a Sony source can’t possibly be interested in nonpartial information.



I always wondered why Michael never sued the press. I was told that Michael’s faith kept him from doing so, choosing not to enact vengeance. The only lawsuit I am aware of Michael’s lawyers ever filing were countersuits in regard to Evan Chandler’s attempt to extort $60 million from Michael after the 1993 allegations, which was thrown out of court.

Does this mean that since Michael didn’t go after people legally, that he was guilty of their claims? Does this mean Taraborrelli was just a victim of a spoiled and attention-seeking Michael Jackson?

Berry Gordy Sues Taraborelli Michael Jackson's UNAUTHORIZED biographer sued by Barry Gordy for LIBEL & SLANDER


Berry Gordy apparently did not agree with Taraborrelli’s book either. Remember, this is written by a man who claims to have witnessed Michael “dying before my eyes”, while denying any responsibility for being the cause of it.

J. Randy Taraborrelli could have continued a friendship with Michael, but he abused it. I know Michael would have forgiven Taraborrelli, as it would tell him to do in the Bible. What happens to forgiveness if the guilty never ask to be forgiven?

Being forgiven is a gift, be it from someone you wounded or from God. It has to be accepted for it to do you any good. In order for one to accept it, guilt has to be recognized by the one receiving the forgiveness. If one does not accept that gift, the guilt remains whether that person recognizes it or not. This is what eats away at us.

What would Taraborrelli do today, if he turned a corner on the street and ran face to face into Michael Jackson? What would he say to him? Could he look into the face of someone he called his friend since the age of 13 and feel good about himself? Or would he look into those eyes and see his own shame staring back at him?

What would Michael do if he rounded a corner on the street and ran into that man he once knew from the time he was ten years old? Would Michael scoff at him and turn up his nose? Would he keep walking as if he’d never seen him? Or would he give him the same look as he gave Taraborrelli in that court room in 2005? That look that Taraborelli misread as a smile. A look that really said, “I have done my best to be your friend. I wish you could have seen what you threw away.”

In selling out a friend to a tabloid, a book and possibly a corporation, Taraborrelli threw away a friendship that most reading this blog would have cherished and nurtured. There is no amount of money that will ever bring back that lost and misspent time. And I doubt Taraborrelli will ever find the friendship of a dollar bill any more fulfilling.

That look in Michael's eyes that day in the court room was the last time Taraborrelli said he saw him. I would not want that to be my last memory of him and that is something Taraborrelli will have to live with for the rest of his life.



Deuteronomy 32:34-36 - ‘Is this not laid up in store with Me, Sealed up among My treasures? Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.’
“For the LORD will judge His people And have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their power is gone, And there is no one remaining, bond or free.

68 comments:

  1. I am both and disappointed surprised to see your remarks concerning Charles Thomson as "inexperienced". He is one of the few journalists that I trust concerning Michael Jackson. His articles are factual, insightful, well researched, and beautifully written. He has been a champion for Michael - thoroughly explaining his innocence and lack of journalistic integrity of the media-at-large.
    Also (and this is a problem I see on SEVERAL fan networks), you are continuously citing references that are tabloids themselves!! I wouldn't trust the book you cited further than I can throw it!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Taraborrelli - I'm sorry you are having a problem with my observations. I read your book. I have a hard time believing you and Michael were still friends after that. I have been lucky in that this is the first time I have been truly attacked by someone who defamed Michael. I'm sorry the article disgusts you. Your book disgusted me. We're even.

    I know how smart and insightful Michael was. It's all over this blog. With that said, how can you justify what you have written about him? I wish you had said as much in your book and that article of yours I cited while you beat into him about his surgeries and his "drug" addiction and "weirdness" for the world to read about. Were you fair to Michael in your book? Absolutely not.

    You write for a tabloid Mr. Taraborrelli, and you are going to berate ME because I brought that to people's attention? Did you read your own article? Is there a reason you no longer work for CBS and write for a tabloid instead?

    My blog "grosses" you out . . . well, you've said worse about Michael. I'm sorry I bought your book. Won't happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. lovable - I wrote back to Charles and told him where I got the information about him. I was shocked because I had been reading his blog. I did not agree with the "drugs" issue in regard to Michael, but that he was getting the message out there about how the press treated him. I was livid when someone told me he had that other blog (which turned out not to be true). I read that "Lowlynewshound" blog and it is very similar to his including the layout and the typwriter.

    Loveable did you check that link? The whole blog has been removed (Thelowlynewshound) is now gone. I wonder what happened????

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your investigations and posts are too thorough and too close to the truth. You're exposing a lot that the main media will never do because of their owners and their network of friends. It's obvious that your site is being monitored by many eyes. Please be careful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We're in for a bumpy ride folks . . . I printed the retraction that Charles wanted, however, the "Lowlynewshound" is now no more. It's gone. Somehow, Charles must have contacted the owner just tonight, and convinced him to remove his whole blog. I am just amazed at his influence!

    Randy Taraborrelli posted here, but he curses, so bye-bye on his comment.

    Charles, you disappoint me. Punch all the walls you want. Say Hi to Bandier for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. J - Thank for your comments. I'm angry. I don't know if you saw this, but I went to the lowlynewshound and it has been taken down. I don't know if I should laugh or pray. Hmmmm . . . both.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've read the rather lengthy and long-winded tabloid-styled Bio written by Taraborrelli. In most parts, I cross referenced it with Michael's own auto-bio "Moon Walk". From what I saw, the historical stuff regarding the J5 era was for the most part a duplicate of MJ's book, except it was elaborated upon further, ala tabloidism, rather than journalism. BUT since my family once owned and operated a tavern, when you grow up in a scenario such as that, you learn from a very young age to literally "smell BS coming for miles." Well, Mr. Taraborrelli's book has plenty of that in-between the bookcovers--that's for sure. Overall, the thing that disturbed me most, is that this book was supposedly written by MJ's friend, and like you I was quite disgusted with the results.

    I'll tell you what though...if any of MJ's pals would choose to write a book on him, I'm willing to bet that Liz Taylor or Liza Minnelli would be far more accurate and believable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I do take some of what JRT says with a big grain of salt, I'm gonna have to echo loveable_leslie.

    Charles Thomson is one of FEW, next to Aphrodite Jones, that I trust when it comes to Michael Jackson. A lot of what he writes is well-researched, unbiased, and straightforward. The guy tells it like it is. Hardly seems appropriate to label him "inexperienced".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bonnie,
    WOW! You've had a busy night! I can't remember the last time I followed a blog with this much Action!

    Keep Up The Good Work!


    Ladyaquarius,
    I agree with you about Liz and Liza
    If they wrote a book about Michael, I'd be one of the First to buy it! For Sure!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bonnie! Once again, an absolutely excellent and thoroughly researched piece! Thank you so much for all your digging and hard work. I agree with you wholeheartedly on every count. Although Michael did sue the press, at least once. He sued The Daily Mirror, a British rag..er, tabloid..for claiming that his nose was falling off when he arrived in the country some years ago. The Mirror is still the most vile newspaper of all tabloids in the UK with regards to Michael.

    I came to this too late to see what Taraborrelli wrote, but if it's as bad as you say, I don't think I'd really want to read it. Could someone please tell me a little more about 'the lowly newshound'. Are you saying that Charles Thompson was involved with this somehow, and that it's anti-Michael?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd be very surprised if Charles wrote anything bad about Michael. He seems to be the only 'journalist' (hate to call him that, because it sounds derogatory) who is worth his salt - at least over here in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You have been FAIR!! Congratulations!!!
    It's all for L.O.V.E. I love you.God bless you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bonnie, Although a good article, I beg to differ with you in that you were wrong to say Charles Thomson (which you spelled as ThomPson) and J Randy are friends. They are not. and Charles only acquainted himself with J Randy to get some insight on an article.. I know this for a FACT.. You need to apologize for your mis facts and mis statement. I assure you, you mis spoke and mis wrote.. Facts and Truth are important and if there is ONE person who knows there is factual error, it taints the entire article.. Thank You.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are wrong about Thomson and given the fact that we know what haters are doing, allow me to say you were trapped. I didn't have the chance to read that blog you were talking about so I don't know anything about it. But it's interesting that it went down right after Thomson announced in all his internet accounts that someone is posing like him in a blog and under TMZ comments. Posers do not last long especially when they get the official answer and they are debunked and exposed. So typical for a sociopath hater so be careful and don't rely on what someone told you. In my opinion, you should have talked to Thomson first before jumping to conclusions, although I think it was easy to understand the set up anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, I feel the same way.. Bonnie should have messaged the 'real' Charles.. He is delightful, he answers messages and is the real deal.. Hopefully, Bonnie now knows that he is approachable..

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is to Jenn who says that JRT and Charles are not friends and that Charles only acquainted himself with JRT to get insight. Charles himself on his blog this morning entitled "Clearing Up More Nonsense" says "I have made no secret of my friendship with Randy Taraborrelli and nor has he. We had dinner together in LA several weeks ago and both posted the pictures on our facebook pages. I'm not ashamed of our friendship and nor should I be. Taraborrelli is a kind, warm, funny and generous man, and any implication that he's part of a conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson is beyond absurd." Charles, himself, calls his relationship with JRT a "friendship". If Charles were in it just for "insight", he could have eliminated totally his references to "friendship".

    ReplyDelete
  17. Something that stood out for me in reading JRTaraborrelli's book was his critism of Michael's autobiography Moonwalk, attempting to place himself as THE authority on MJ (and damage sales of Moonwalk in the process?). I almost believed some of his claims...until I read Moonwalk. I wondered how a "friend" could write for profit some of the things he did. I regret puting my money into JRT's pocket.

    Sorry, couldn't just listen, had to watch the Tabloid Junkie video, thanks for that.

    From the fast-checking link: "Much of my material will be new not only to him [MJ's lawyer] but to Michael Jackson.'' If it was unknown by Michael then how could it be true?

    Wow, JRT wasted no time in capitalizing on Michael's death...a Daily Mail series just 4 days later?!? I couldn't finish it. Back and forth between oozing "compassion" and "understanding" to stabbing Michael in the back, making some unverifiable accusations that he just left hanging for effect. "Life-long confidante"?

    1979 - "I went to the family home for another interview and he showed up wearing bandages on his nose. I was certain he’d been assaulted by his father, Joseph — because we all knew in the press corps..." He was just another member of the press. "However, that wasn’t the case. He’d tripped on stage, fallen and broken his nose." If Taraborrelli was such a close friend, why didn't he already know? Sounds to me like he only "knew" Michael through interviews.

    During the trial - "Michael...smiled and nodded his recognition of me.", "I looked in vain for the young man I once knew." "I spoke to him on the phone only twice in the last four years, both very brief conversations"

    Thomson has now written a disclaimer - 20 July 2010 13:19, in which he accuses and berates you and your blog, both outright and with inuendos. Excerpts:

    "brainless witterings...deluded nonsense"
    "The Lowly Newshound blog, which has disappeared amidst this latest controversy, contained numerous in-depth articles about Michael Jackson."

    Bumpy ride indeed, Bonnie. Fortify your armor and watch your back 'cause now you're tangling with the big boys...and they don't like it!

    ReplyDelete
  18. In regard to all those commenting on my being unfair to Charles - What happened last night was a lesson in never questioning your judgment. Before I even had the retraction on the second blog finished, the link to "the Lowly Newshound" no longer worked . . . blogged was removed. The whole thing. Now what are the odds?

    Also, on Twitter, while Charles Thompson was raging about me, he also raged about what I said about "his friend Randy Taraborrelli". I have a picture of the two of them, together, when Thompson was out in L.A. Charles called Taraborrelli "his friend" on twitter.

    I have lost all respect for Charles after last night. I put in a retraction on the information HE GAVE ME that he WAS NOT THE LOWLY NEWSHOUND. Only to find the whole blog removed. I'm not an idiot.

    I will retract what I said about Charles ThoMson being inexperienced . . . he is a very experienced liar. Thank you Charles for the revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bonny, you are such a strong person, I sometimes disagree with what you write, but I really admire your strength and independence.
    I have read thelowlynewshound's blog before and also thought it was very similar to Charles Thomson writing. The blog disappeared and that is what I expected and predicted, and told about to my family yesterday..
    Charles Thomson wrote some great articles about Michael Jackson, but on his twitter he gives some derogatory remarks about him, which are absolutely unnecessary and maybe show his real attitude toward Michael?
    Anyway, it is very upsetting to watch them teamed up and attacking you so viciously. I wish you to be strong and careful....

    ReplyDelete
  20. Truthbtold - Thank you for your research. Yes, their actions alone are telling. Two liars exposed and I thank you and the other lady that helped me, with her research.

    "The Lowlynewshound" which has disappeared, LOL!!! Yeah, it was there yesterday morning! I always check my links, Charles!

    Charles and Randy - Keep one thing in mind, this little blog of mine is NOTHING compared to what you and the likes of you have put Michael through. Instead of posturing and trying to save face and covering your tracks you should be taking this opportunity to publicly APOLOGIZE to MICHAEL.

    Charles, I don't know what to say to you. The sudden and timely removal of "Thelowlynewshound" blog was a significant response. All you had to say was that it was an old blog and you didn't learn who Michael was until after he died . . . Many would have resonated with that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Erena - Thank you for your honesty and your support. I have to wonder why they would expend so much energy on someone like me. I'm not exactly the New York Times (okay bad example).

    Remember how Sony responded to Michael's exposing them . . . Like I said . . . this will be a bumpy ride. I have my seat belt on. There are more lies and liars out there. These two are the least of our problems.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You go girl...you got guts!

    My pleasure Bonnie, glad to be of assistance!
    I suppose it's a lesson on heeding intuition and not allowing it to become clouded by naysayers.

    GREAT JOB!!!

    And now...a word from CEThomson speaking about his innermost strength and professionalism:

    "Oh good. Twitter is experiencing technical difficulties, preventing me from blocking the mentally ill d*ckheads who are attacking me."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Josie - I'm really glad to see you back. Yes, it was a busy night. I was trying to go to bed, but that never happens when I want it to. I wasn't expecting "action". Some disagreement maybe, but not this. :o)

    Ladyaquarius - That is interesting that you mention the cross-referencing of the two books. I didn't do that, but cross-referenced Taraborrelli's book with coinciding interviews Michael did before and after publishing, what else was going on in the press (articles about Michael during that time) and the songs he wrote and the dates he wrote them. It's a shame half these people don't know as much about Michael as they make up in print.

    The lies will eventually be exposed. Many around this thing have said that. And the liar will not like it when they are exposed. Just hunker down and keep fighting the good fight.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dee - Thank you for letting me know about Michael's battle with the press. Something else that got very little coverage, like Michael successfully defending himself.

    I was as shocked as you were about Charles Thomson. When I saw that the blog in question was taken down as I was writing up the retraction . . . You know, why? Why, after all this, do they continue to victimize Michael? Why? I thought Charles was sincerely trying to bring the press to task for their culpability in Michael's persecution, yet his Twitter posts and his other comments and what was written on the "Lowlynewshound", after it suddenly disappeared I'm supposed to believe that it wasn't Thomson's blog. ???

    ReplyDelete
  25. Let me see if I got this straight.

    Bonnie: You say that Thomson is the writer of
    both Blogs.

    And Thomson: Says he is the writer of only 1 blog
    The Lowlynewshound was written by an
    Imposter.

    Did I get it right?

    If this is right, I honestly don't know who to believe, ......Bonnie or Charles Thomson

    I guess I will just keep reading both blogs and maybe in time, it will become more clear.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kitty - forget it. They've been found out. Read the rest of the comments before posting.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Josie - You can't read "Thelowlynewshound" It was taken down last night while all this was going on. That alone tells me he lied.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For the sake of avoiding these ridiculous, circular arguments . . . anyone that writes for a tabloid that wants to accuse me of quoting from tabloids (their own work, sheesh!) please save your breath. I will not respond to these I will only delete them.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Josie - The impostor argument of Charles does not add up. How can Charles delete the blog of an impostor that's been up since March of 2008 and do it that night, and do it as I was writing a retraction that I'm now going to have to retract. If it was truly an impostor, the blog would still be up. Since when does Charles have the login info of an impostor? LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Bonnie, I am so proud of you. We thought our voices weren't heard but this proves we are being heard loud and clear. Though removed, I could still get into the blog today "cached" and screen-shot some posts. I had previously copied ALL MJ related entries if you need them.

    I am disheartened to see a "respectable" journalist fire threats. Fans have been saying the blog owner was him for over 1 year, NOW he denies it? Bonnie is NOT the first person with this claim.

    We have spoken against some powerful people & companies and If Charles Thomson thinks his threats will silence us then he is the "mentally ill". If you didn't step on toes, if they were "wrongfully accused", they wouldn't be this bent out of shape. WELL DONE, Bonnie, BRAVA!

    March ahead! It's all in the name of justice for Michael, it's all for L.O.V.E

    -MUZIKfactory2

    ReplyDelete
  31. What I don't understand is why would anyone post 2 different blogs about Michael Jackson?



    One blog being Positive and the other Negative.

    Wouldn't they be sabatoging their purpose?

    Wouldn't the 2 blogs Cancel eachother out?

    Even though the 2 blogs are under 2 different names... what possible benefit is there for that person?

    I don't get it! Can someone please explain it to me?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Josie - go read: The O2 Press Conference - Comparing Photos entry from a few days ago. That explains some.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Even IF Charles was working for Sony it still doesn't make sense that he'd have 2 blogs.

    IF the 2 blogs are from the SAME person then that person is canceling himself out.

    How does that benefit the person?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bonnie – I admire your continues effort to expose all those that buried Michael. I read what Charles wrote about Michael after he died, and I took him as innocent man who is trying to expose the media for what they did to Michael. But now I have no respect for him, and for him to be a friend with that disgusting man called Taraborrelli is appalling. I was advised by a friend to buy his book before. And after I asked her to sum it up for me before I buy it, I said this is not the book I would spend my money and did buy it. I believe Sony is definitely behind Taraborrell for him to refuse an offer from Michael not to publish his book, otherwise what else. I wonder how much money he pocketed killing a beautiful human being.

    Bonnie – keep on and we are behind you. Do not be afraid. And remember your dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Unless that person wants to make a name for himself so he Pretends to have an enemy that he is fighting.

    Sounds like a long shot to me. Too much work. And there is always a possiblity that person could get his posts mixed up!

    I just don't get it!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm still trying to figure out what Motive Charles would have in blogging 2 different posts while pretending to only blog 1.

    I don't know what to think.

    I need to know what the benefit would be for Charles to create this 2nd blog and pretend it was created by someone else.

    Anyone have any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neither of the sites were specifically about Michael Jackson . Who really cares if Thompson is the Lowly newshound? What does that have to do with anything ?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Josie - this is what i ask myself all the time ever since i read this here - what would Charles Thomson possibly GAIN out of it? To write the one blog and the other? What would be the motive, what would be the benefit??

    ReplyDelete
  39. While I admit it was shocking that THAT website went DOWN after Charles name was mentioned,
    it still doesn't prove or disprove who was behind that website.

    And it doesn't answer the question Why....What Benefit.....Where is the motive?

    I just hate when things are left dangling, ya know?

    It's important to know who was behind that website because Fans need to know who to trust!

    So far, no one has been able to answer my question!

    What is the Motive and What is the Benefit?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree with Josie about why.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The idea of someone working for Sony to try to Cover Up a Conspiracy seems possible but How do they figure it was Charles Thomson?

    I may have to let this go.

    I like your blog Bonnie but I also like Charles' blog as well.

    So I will read both blogs and not take sides unless someone can convince me otherwise.

    No Fighting....No Competion....Only Peace and Love.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am not sure what is more amusing, Charles Thomson working for Sony, you using Bob Jones to support your claim that Michael Jackson offered to pay off J. Randy Taraborelli or your naivety.

    ReplyDelete
  43. On Charles Thomson's blog he claims you Bonnie have "thousands" of readers of this blog. Do you think you have "thousands" of readers? No offense but that sounds pretty high. I'm just surprised that an internationally known writer such as Charles Thomson has such a strong reaction to you questioning or disagreeing with him. He makes it sound like no one has ever done that before.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bonnie,
    I didn't realize you were using the Bob Jones book to prove the $2 million theory. I can't understand why you would attack Taraborelli over Bob Jones. Jones has nothing good to say about MJ in his book Man Behind the Mask. And if you scroll down from the $2 million theory, he has a whole chapter about MJ marrying Lisa Marie and doesn't have anything positive to say there either. I say this because your latest entry is about Michael and Lisa Marie. I've read both Taraborelli's and Jones' books and Jones' book was just trash talk and no place to go to prove anything, especially for a fan who hates when anybody says anything negative about Michael Jackson.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As an even MORE interesting note: Charles Thomson has "protected his Tweets" according to Twitter. Now, if he hasn't been burning the candle at both ends, why would he have done that???

    ReplyDelete
  46. Peeps on Twitter are saying The Lowly Newshound twitter account was deleted this evening. This after the blog by the same name was deleted yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I didn't finish to read this article yet, but just want to comment that Reverend June, his spiritual advisor, told us (fans) in an Ustream that the last time she saw Michael, in April/2009, she saw in his face that he was going to die soon. And just in case, she loves Michael dearly.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi Bonnie, I'm following you since some time ago so I saw that blog which has dissapeared, and it was very similar with the Charles' one. Strange that its' not anymore...
    Anyway I don't feel in the condition to judge anyone, this is just to let you know that I support you 100%.
    Thank you for your great work!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Josie - I have no idea why Charles would write two blogs that contradict each other. I know for a fact it was his and he has contacted others to try to explain why he has two different blogs. He solicited people to mediate for him then accused them of attacking him when his explanations did not make sense. He lied. He didn't want people to know that . .. end of story.

    Rhoda - I have 157 readers. I don't know where he gets "thousands". Maybe they migrated over from the Newshound when he closed it down last night.

    Christina - Bob Jones, Randy Taraborrelli . .. what's the difference. Both are tabloid authors.

    sas - If the sources I use are good enough for Taraborrelli to use they are good enough for me. Taraborrelli made a mint ripping Michael apart in his book, I am NOT going to justify disagreeing with him. This blog is FOR Michael. It's not my fault Taraborrelli doesn't like having his own words pointed out to him.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rhoda - you said "Peeps on Twitter are saying The Lowly Newshound twitter account was deleted this evening. This after the blog by the same name was deleted yesterday."

    That is correct.

    Beatriz - Yes, he deleted the blog last night and the associated twitter account today.

    Now that the Lowlynewshound exposed and rubbed out, maybe we can get back to business.

    Thank you everyone for your support. I love you very much and thank you for researching. I owe two ladies here (three now) my gratitude.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Teddy, forgive me, just skipped over you didn't I?

    Both blogs were about Michael. One was a continuous hit piece on him, the other defended him against the press . . . both owned by the same person. It's done. The bad blog is gone. He deleted it. So we can close this, yes? Thank you for posting.

    ReplyDelete
  52. NO Bonnie , the blogs were about different subjects. From time to time the authors wrote about Michael, but the actual blogs were not solely about Michael.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Teddy,I'm not going to argue with you. I read the whole thing and I USED to follow the CharlesThompson blog. Read every entry in Lowlynewshound. You're wasting my time. Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think the fact that blogs/twitters are being shut down speaks volumes about the accuracy of your accusations. Spot on, Bonnie! Good job.

    As for Tortellini [:)], I really wish you hadn't deleted his comment. I would like to have read it. Can't you just censor his profanities?

    ReplyDelete
  55. hey can someone share the old newshound posts with us? would love to read, and someone up there says they have them all???

    thanks :D

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi Bonnie, I want to share with you something written in This-is-not-it website, may be you have read it already, but it really invites to think that AEG is the main responsable of Michael's death:
    What happened?

    AEG contributed to Michael’s death by pressuring him to commit to a gruelling rehearsal schedule in the run-up to the This Is It tour. During the last weeks of his life, Michael Jackson’s health declined. It was evident to everyone. Michael needed and deserved the help he was not given. Neither AEG nor Michael’s own entourage intervened.

    IN MID MAY When Michael began to suffer from insomnia, stress and exhaustion, AEG put a doctor on its payroll to help him sleep.

    IN LATE MAY Michael reached out to some of us and expressed serious doubts about his ability to commit to AEG’s tour schedule. When AEG discovered this, instead of taking action to help him, they promptly denied the reports and kept him more isolated.

    IN EARLY JUNE When Michael started missing rehearsals, crew members went to his house to force him to go to work.

    IN THE LAST DAYS OF HIS LIFE Michael’s weight dropped considerably, and when he began turning up to rehearsals drowsy and incoherent as a result of powerful medication, AEG and his entourage turned a blind eye to his condition and kept pushing him to perform.

    ON JUNE 25 The doctor paid by AEG to keep Michael functional injected a cocktail of sedatives into Michael’s body, followed by a lethal dose of Propofol. He then waited at least 90 minutes after Michael stopped breathing to call the paramedics.

    IN EARLY JULY Had Michael gone to London as planned, he would have most likely succumbed to the pressure and exhaustion and called off the tour, leaving AEG in dire financial straits. Instead AEG now stand to make millions from this movie and related merchandise.

    Michael Jackson is dead because of one act by a doctor paid by AEG to negate the severe psychological and physical strain the preparation for this tour caused.

    Also this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3a9Er9bT10&sns=em

    What do you think about it?

    ReplyDelete
  57. beatriz, I know everyone wants to point the finger at AEG. I am holding off. Information I have says something else and I cannot comment at this time. I'm aware of TINI and support their research, but it's not matching up with what I have and there are documents activity back through latter 2006 through 2008 that figure into this.

    ReplyDelete
  58. frankie - If you have not gotten copies of the Newshound copy and paste this link into your browser - http://michaelsguardian.blogspot.com/2010/07/staying-on-path-and-watching-trip-wires.html

    There are some links on that blog update that lead to the old Newshound posts.

    ReplyDelete
  59. june said...
    "Bonnie, thank you for confirming what I believe was clear, Michael didn't have any prior provable identifiable experience with propofol. I know it's all trash talk and that the TRUTH should come out at trial. I keep asking myself why was Michael saddled with Tohme? Because Tohme owned the PR firm for Colony? Which PR firm does not now seem to exist? All these people/entities in the last few years of Michael's life are connected to his death, and put out so many lies about him, all for MONEY! These lies about addiction must be shown for what they are, so that Murray cannot use it as a defense. Some of Michael's family talking about interventions to cover themselves just make me sick."

    July 23, 2010 1:01 PM
    --------------------------------------------
    I'm on the sidelines here and very confused about what the truth is in Michael Jackson's case. There has been a lot of mud throwing in all directions over the last year. For a while, Jackson's make-up/hair artist for 27 years, was being attacked for not being a "real" friend or not doing enough to prevent his death. I thought this was outrageous! The situation was complicated and this individual couldn't have changed things and was and still is UNJUSTLY being attacked. Now "journalists" are attacking each other and their motives and questioning what there real agenda is. That's not wrong but it is VERY confusing. Don't know who to believe. Will we ever get to the "truth?"

    Concerning Michael's problem with drug addiction. In the early 90's, he canceled a tour and publically announced that he had gone through a humiliating police search of his person, including the ordeal of being photographed unclothed. He had also announced that he was going into to rehab to deal with a perscription drug ADDICTION. The was in 1993 by his own admission. Why is his admission being ignored? Also, concerning the autopsy report, a person can have on-again off-again addiction problems with out it causing permanent damage to internal organs thus the almost clean bill of health given on said autopsy report (other than what Murray gave him). Again, Michael had an addiction problem by his OWN admission.

    As for interventions, Janet Jackson confirmed that they did occur. She is very believable to me. Janet was noticable upset on a recent appearance on Oprah when asked about interventions. She has confirmed interventions did happen and she was in attendance. She described one incident as being so upsetting that she had to leave the room in tears.

    I believe that the family won't give dates for interventions due to issues with AEG/Sony and the upcoming lawsuit. Certainly it would be very complicated if interventions happened while Michael was under contract for the O2 concerts. I'm sure the family has been instructed on what to say publically by lawyers (of course). Why would Janet lie? She's financially independent of Michael and has been for 20+ years. In addition, she is not beholden to Sony. She owe's them nothing. She clearly LOVES her brother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MJ never signed the contract, doesn't matter anyway. They got away with murder...

      Delete
    2. Randy was not MJ's "friend" for 40 years #fact! He hardly knew him, he, oprah and Bashit are horrible excuses for human beings. Bashir asked MJ about his cheek bones, is the son of bitch blind, did all the Jackson men have cheek implants or their lips done? They're all the same, no different, MJ's skin turned white due to the vitiligo, he used bleaching cream to even out the blotches if they had a brain they obviously forgot to use it. Idiots!

      Delete
  60. Taraborrelli's book was not issued in 1991. That is the 2nd or 3rd edition already. It was first published in the 80's. Unfortunately, I've thrown away my copy so I can't check it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hey Bonnie, have you seen this?

    Looks like someone is doing damage control.

    http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/

    "What does make me angry is when I see vulnerable fans looking to these blogs for answers and taking them seriously. Whenever I look underneath one of those blogs and see somebody commenting, ‘Thanks – I didn’t know Charles was a hired Sony blogger. I won’t support him anymore’, that makes my blood boil. These bloggers are taking advantage of vulnerable people – and those vulnerable people are bigger victims in this situation than I am."

    Is this guy for real?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hello, Ms. Bonnie.
    I am very confused about what to think of the book. On one hand, it contains a lot of tabloid trash like Michael having a prosthetic tip on his nose, him being the one who spread rumours about the hyperbaric chamber, the Elephant Man's bones, etc. (which a lot of other tabloid writers claim), and that Michael has always wanted to be called the King, demanding that he was recognised more than any other singers and stating that Frank Sinatra, Mick Jagger and a lot of other artists were not that talented; on the other hand, what Michael says about Taraborrelli's book (though the fact that he calls him Taraborrelli confirms that Michael didn't really think of him as a friend... I don't think that makes the information in the book necessarily untrue) in the Glenda tapes, which I do not doubt is authentic. He says that he didn't want Glenda to read it, not because it was untrue, but because he thought she wouldn't understand him, and he didn't want her to "know some sh*t" (quoted from Michael himself) about him. It seems that what is in the book, is, indeed, true, by the way Michael responds to it. And during the conversation with Glenda, when he is talking about him standing up against his father's abuse, he says "and [my brothers] talk about me being conceited now" - as if he is saying that compared to how he was when he was younger, he is not AS conceited (?), if you understand what I mean.. Do you think it might be true, then, that what Taraborrelli says about Michael are real? This makes me really worried because then it would mean that Michael did believe he should be crowned the King, that his views of music was completely commercial and not about his artistic views at all, that Michael's dances WERE actually meant to be sexual unlike what Michael said in Oprah Winfrey show-that they happen subliminally, and confirm all the other unbelievable things Taraborrelli has said. And though these being true would not make Michael a bad person at all, it does change his image, as it means that he was not as honest and humble as I always believed he was, and I would not be able to listen to his music the same way knowing that they were made entirely for the public pleasure, and not his own soul... (Please do know that I never mean to accuse or criticise Michael. I'm just genuinely struggling to make sense of what I've read, and seen.)
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay. I'm not going to get mad at you. But I am going to tell you that the "Glenda" tapes are not genuine and neither is Taraborrelli.

      What Taraborrelli wrote about Michael was second hand information that OTHERS who wanted to demonize Michael, told him to write. Take a look at how snuggy that man is to John Branca and other journalists who demonized Michael.

      The Glenda tapes were put out for one reason. Attention. And it worked. Would Michael EVER talk about a "spotted d*ck" to some girl over the phone? I don't think so. They were also created to pit fans against Michael's family.

      There are other "phone" conversations that have been spliced and diced in a recording studio with mixing equipment to implicate certain people - like the June Gatling recording.

      Listen to Michael's songs. "This Time Around" rap section tells a good story about the illegal taping of private phone conversations, only to be cut up, edited, mixed with "other" voices to make a completely unrecognizable conversation from the original recording.

      Taraborrelli is beneath contempt. No, what he said about Michael is not true. He was rewarded by the establishment for helping to tear him down. Take note also on the Glenda tapes how they sort of give credibility to someone like Taraborrelli.

      You want to get to know Michael Jackson - Listen to Michael Jackson. It's in his song lyrics what they did to him (Dangerous - History - Blood on the Dance Floor - Invincible). There is not much Michael was free to say in interviews because of his handlers. The man was tortured and so was his family. I cover this all in the 2011 blog entries.

      Taraborrelli is just another flaming journalist who's coveting of Michael and envy was allowed to flourish in print and media.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the quick reply.

      I am not sure that Glenda tapes are fake, though, as there is no real proof that it is, and the content sounds quite believable - if they were, indeed, fake, wouldn't they have put some more stimulating dialogues? Nothing that could really catch the public's attention (aside from his fans) was found, and some of the conversations seemed too trivial and irrelevant to have been just made up, like the conversations between him and Ms. Glenda's young daughter and son. (and the "spotted d*ck" is a name of an English bread, in case you didn't know, and a lot of people, I'm sure, would find that amusing, so it isn't too unbelievable that he would mention that to a friend, as it would be if anyone else did) The fact that many sections of it was impossible to hear, or to understand due to being cut off also seem to suggest that they were actual recordings. I do not remember what it was called, but I do recall that there was a phone call recording that was proved to be a fake (it was a famous one, I can't remember the words used to call it though... was it the s tape or something like that?), but even the fans who have proven that wrong still believe in the authenticity of the Glenda tapes, including some of the most known vindicators of Michael. I have also had my doubts about the tapes, but based on the research I have done on the subject, I do believe that they were, indeed, real, though the reason why they were released was - as you have said - purely for attention (and money).

      I do listen to Michael, of course. Afterall, who could know better about the man than himself? But I think that we do have to take into account the fact that Michael did not want everything about himself to be known (which I understand, as they are his privacy, and he has the whole right to want to keep them), and that he did - as he would not deny it himself - care about his public image, not because he was fake but because he is a public figure, and is, based on what we can see about him, particularly self-conscious. As much as I find Michael the most reliable source to learn about him, I do think that we do need cross-referencing in order to understand the unbiased (I don't think ANYONE can be perfectly candid and open about the flaws of oneself - and there certainly is no reason for Michael to have mentioned all his mistakes in the public, as that would do nothing but bring criticisms upon himself), whole truth about the man, as he is not only who he was to himself, but also who he was in the perspective of the others.

      I am not trying to argue with you, or to say that my points are all correct, but I do wish to understand what exactly is the truth about Taraborrelli's book in an objective manner. I would like to believe that the whole book is a lie, nothing more than an extended tabloid article, or to pick out what I want to believe from the book and neglect the rest as lies and Taraborrelli's own speculations (and I seem to have been doing this subconsciously, as I read parts of the book), but - as much as I still hope someone could persuade me to believe that it's a complete lie - I guess I would have to try to find and accept the whole truth (though I doubt it will ever be discoverable), or as much of the truth as I would be able to find in my search for it, even if some parts of it may not be what I wish to believe....

      Delete
    3. Well, what is the proof that the Glenda tapes are REAL? It's a lot harder to prove a negative and no one has every PROVED they were real. Take note that the IMPORTANT parts of the conversation were legible. And also remember back when these were supposedly taped, phone recording devices were not capable of holding that long of a conversation. I realize some of them were supposedly from different days, but the sound quality is exactly the same? No deviations? People have to use common sense. We didn't have the technology back then that we have today.

      Taraborrelli - There are books put out by people who knew Michael ALOT BETTER then he did (He met Michael once) - like . . . his brother Jermaine. There is no doubt that there is SOME truth in Taraborrelli's book, twisted as it may be. But trying to put Michael's life together from that piece of tabloid trash is going to leave you quite a big hole and a completely inaccurate depiction of Michael.

      What Taraborrelli's book does prove - is that he had access to some very intimate and private and horrifying experiences of Michael's aka the 'strip seach/photo session'. This proves to me that Taraborrelli was very chummy with the very people involved in setting that up and I would not give that journalistic THUG the satisfaction or that much attention discussing his filthy theories and fantasies.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.