TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

People vs. Dr. Conrad Murray

MJ's Security Guard:

Murray Had Me Remove Vials

9/29/2011 10:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Alberto Alvarez -- Michael Jackson's Security Guard Testifies
Updated 9/29/11 at 8:48 AM

0929_alberto_alverex_video
Michael Jackson
's security guard Alberto Alvarez -- the man who called 911 the morning MJ died -- just took the stand, claiming Murray asked him to remove several vials of Propofol before he called an ambulance.

Alvarez claims he quickly arrived at the scene on June 25th, 2009 -- and saw Murray performing one-handed chest compressions on MJ, who was still in the bed. According to Alvarez, Murray immediately asked him to pack away several vials and an IV bag.

0929_propofol_bag

Alvarez claims there were two saline bags on the IV stand, but Murray cared only about the one that contained a vial with a "milky white substance."

Alvarez claims Murray THEN asked Alvarez to call 911 -- at which point the dispatcher ordered him to move Michael from the bed to the floor in order to perform CPR. According to Alvarez, paramedics arrived soon after.

0929_michael_911_call_launch
Defense attorney Ed Chernoff tried to get Alvarez to admit he may have been confused about the timing of the events -- but Alvarez insisted ... Murray ordered him to bag the vials BEFORE paramedics arrived.

Alvarez says he has been offered enormous sums to provide interviews to media outlets -- as much as $500,000.

The defense just showed footage inside a hospital room where MJ's body was relocated after the singer was pronounced dead -- and the place was crawling with cops.

60 COMMENTS

No Avatar
2.

Ashley    

I've read comments from people saying "I feel sorry for Dr. Murray. If he hadn't give Michael the drugs, some other doctor would have."

Ok, so people feel sorry for Murray because he was the one that ended up being the doctor that was responsible for Michael's healthcare when Michael died? If any other doctor had been the one, they would be just as responsible. I don't understand. That's like saying that a drug dealer is not to blame at all if one of his "clients" overdoses on something they gave them. A drug dealer provides the drugs that hooks the client that causes them to overdose.

If it hadn't been for doctors like Murray overprescribing medication to Michael, Michael may never have had sleep problems in the first place. I understand he had joint pain and lupus and other issues that prevented him from sleeping, but it also could have been an imbalance of medication that kept him up. Not having the correct dosages of certain medications can certainly mess with you.

The fact is that Dr. Murray brought Propofol into that house. Whether or not Michael took the final dose in a last ditch effort to get some sleep or whether Murray pushed it himself, it doesn't matter, because in the end, Murray brought the drug into the house and made it available to Michael.

Murray's defense claims that Murray was trying to wean him off of the drug but finally gave in. Any doctor worth his salt that KNOWS they are giving the patient something that isn't good for them, wouldn't just GIVE IN and give it to them anyway. And if Michael DID give himself the final dose, how was he able to get it? How did he wake up from a Propofol-induced "sleep," skillfully apprehend the drug, take it, and die, all in the few minutes Murray was supposedly out of the room? Was it across the room? If so, how did a man who was under the influence of a powerful anesthetic and was so drugged up thanks to his doctor that he could barely put together a sentence (Google the voice recording that Murray unprofessionally made in 2009 of Mr. Jackson under the influence of something he was given), manage to pull himself across the room, take the final dose, get into bed and die immediately? Was the drug laying on the bedside table? If so, why?

Whatever the case was, Murray was negligent.

And why wasn't 911 called immediately? I don't care if it's too late. YOU CALL 911. I don't care if Michael wanted Murray as his doctor. He clearly had enough faith in him that he felt comfortable that the doctor would take care of him. He clearly had future goals and plans, as was obvious even from the recording Murray made of him. This wasn't a man who wanted to die.

Murray once again proves that Michael couldn't even trust the people he thought he could. It's amazing how people used him and abused him.

Now Michael is dead, and Murray, no matter how you want to paint it, DID play a part in Michael Jackson's death. If he hadn't given in to Michael, somebody else would have, you say? Well, if that's true, then somebody else would be sitting at the defense table today, not Murray. The point is, Murray didn't say no, and his asking for 5 million dollars as payment shows his first priority was money and not Michael.

1069 days ago
3.

Ashley    

If you feel sorry for Murray, then you must feel sorry for the drug dealers out there, because he was no better than that. He provided harmful substances to Michael, didn't monitor him properly, spent time chatting up women on the phone and didn't even care enough about Michael to respect his privacy (recording him, etc.) so why the heck should we believe anything he or his defense has to say?

1069 days ago
4.

tmz@frog.cc    

Dr. Conman MurphysLaw, a greedy drugdealer.

1069 days ago
5.

GBeach    

I didn't like Michael Jackson. I thought he was as weird as weird could get. Having said that, I hope that this "Dr" gets what is coming to him. I truely believe that he killed Michael Jackson. What disturbs me the most was the fact that he called for Paris to help? Why? That child did not need to see his daddy like that. That is an image that will haunt that little boy forever. I was an adult when I saw my mom dead on a ambulance gurney (even though I didn't know it at the time) with doctors surrounding her giving her CPR. That haunts me. He is a CHILD! I am sick to my stomach.

1069 days ago
6.

Arwen    

They have a tie at three?...lol

1069 days ago
7.

Steinberg    

Some of you are simply obsessed! Get over it! MJ is dead, he hired a crooked doctor who paid him outrageous amount to give him stuff he could have got on the street, but didn't want to create a media frenzy with it so he went private with it, and died while taking a fatal dose of what he had coming. MJ was drugged and was in a euphoric stage and thought taking the extra dose of propofol would help.

Apparently it didnt. MJ's fault.

1069 days ago
8.

LI_Mom    

Did it occur to this idiot that the FIRST THING he should do is call 911 & not worry about following orders to 'get ready to go to the hospital?'

Michael sure surrounded himself with INCOMPETENT FOOLS!

I truly believe anyone with REAL INTEGRITY wanted nothing to do with Michael's dysfunction & his reckless disregard for his own well being.

1069 days ago
9.

J. Sarayda Shapiro, PhD    

"There were two saline bags on the stand, but Alvarez said Murray only cared about the one that had a vial in it as well as a 'milky white substance' at the bottom of the bag."
This really contradicts the claim that MJ took the propofol himself! Instead, it sounds like Murray was trying to remove evidence that he had given MJ propofol--when he SHOULD have been calling 911. Security guard Alberto Alvarez gave the same account to police, too, right after MJ died.

I'm a psychologist with lots to say about the Murray trial. Please check out my new website, www.maninthemirrorbook.com or connect with me at www.facebook.com/jsarayda or http://twitter.com/ManInMirrorNews

1069 days ago
10.

Simpy    

Junior Seau is a bodyguard now?

1069 days ago
11.

Rogue Warrior    

By Josh Mankiewicz
Dateline NBC
updated 9/3/2004 7:54:52 PM ET

Print
Font:

The year was 1993, and the biggest star in the world was Michael Jackson. The hit song was "Black or White," his universal appeal so powerful that at the Super Bowl, he was the halftime show, his message that children can heal the world beamed to millions.

But that year, Jackson's wholesome, Peter Pan image would be tarnished by lurid accusations of child molestation -- and a huge civil settlement with his accuser would keep many of the details of the case secret.

But Dateline NBC has learned just what evidence authorities had against Michael Jackson, as well as details about the civil case against him that have remained sealed in the basement of the Los Angeles county courthouse for more than a decade.

Dateline NBC also heard from those who've never spoken publicly before, and has information about a second boy who received a multimillion-dollar payout, keeping the case out of a courtroom and off the front pages.

The allegations from 1993 are suddenly relevant today because witnesses from that case may now finally testify, and because it was a sort of dress rehearsal for the current case, showing authorities just how difficult it can be to accuse a wealthy celebrity.

It all began with a chance meeting in 1992, Jackson's car broke down in Los Angeles and he showed up at a rental car agency. The owner's step-son, a huge Jackson fan, got to meet his idol. Before long, Jackson's chauffeur was driving him to the boy's mother's modest Los Angeles home.

Ernie Rizzo is a Chicago private eye who had access to some of the early evidence in 1993.

Ernie Rizzo: "Michael Jackson started spending a lot of time at the boy's house... At 3:15 when the boy got home from school he'd get on the phone and call him and it went on for weeks, but it got worse and worse where the kid was up all night making phone calls back and forth."

In February '93 the boy and his mother were weekend guests at Jackson's Neverland Ranch, a child's paradise with its own amusement park and a video arcade that never closes. And for the next five months they appeared to be at Jackson's side everywhere, prompting the tabloids to call them his "secret family."

Sleepovers begin
The boy's mother initially believed her son's relationship Jackson was innocent. Then, in March, '93 during a trip to Las Vegas, the boy says he and Jackson began sleeping together in the same bed.

It happened after they watched the movie, "The Exorcist," according to this sworn statement by the boy filed in court months later.

"When the movie was over, I was scared. Michael Jackson suggested that I spend the night with him, which I did. There was no physical contact."

And that's what both the boy and Jackson told the mother when she asked about the sleeping arrangement.

"From that time, whenever Michael Jackson and I were together, we slept in the same bed."

Both parents even played host inviting the superstar into their homes for sleepovers with their 13-year-old son.

A polaroid photo the boy took of Jackson, wearing pajamas just before bedtime at his mother's house made it onto a cover of a book about Jackson by a South American journalist. It was at the least a highly unusual relationship for any parent to tolerate.

Josh Mankiewicz: "You think Jackson sort of deliberately turned the mother's head back in '93?"

Rizzo: "Sure. Jackson gave her tens of thousands of dollars, he flew her on his private jets all around the world. He gave her credit cards, shop, buy anything you want. Why would you do that to the mother of a little boy unless you wanted something in return?"

In May of '93, Michael Jackson was in Monte Carlo meeting real royalty, being honored at the World Music Awards.

Rizzo: "Jackson files to Monaco, gets a suite in Monte Carlo -- two suites, one for the mother and her daughter and one for him and the little boy. Two suites."

It was on that trip to Monaco, according to the Boy, that sleeping together turned sexual.

The boy swore in a declaration filed in the civil suit against Jackson:

"After that, Michael Jackson masturbated me many times both with his hand and with his mouth… Michael Jackson told me that I should not tell anyone what happened. He said this was a secret."

After she returned to Los Angeles, the boy's father maintains his ex-wife told him she suspected things between her son and Jackson weren't so innocent. He says he confronted the singer.

The father says he asked Jackson in a chronology he wrote for his lawyers. The star responded:

'It's cosmic. I don't understand it myself. I just know we were meant to be together."

Fearing that he was losing his son to Jackson, the boy's father began a custody battle with his ex-wife and by the end of May, the boy moved in with his father. But the boy's relationship with Jackson wasn't over. In fact, the father who had just confronted Jackson now invited the star into his house for a sleepover with his son.

It was Memorial Day weekend, 1993. It would be a pivotal weekend for the case. Since then, no one who had a first person account of what happened inside the boy's home has ever spoken -- until now.

Caretaker speaks out for the first time
Norma Salinas worked for the boy's father and step-mother, cleaning house and caring for their two younger children in their comfortable Brentwood home. She says she was surprised when the boy came to live with his father because the teenager was rarely more than a weekend visitor who spent his time alone. The father usually too preoccupied with work, until that weekend.

Norma Salinas: "Much later I started to understand everything. At first, they didn't want this boy in the house and later when the relationship started with Michael, the boy came here to live. From then on there were strange things going on in this house."

The story about what happened that weekend changes, depending upon who's telling it. Jackson says it was the beginning of a plot to extort money from him. The boy's father wrote in a letter to his lawyers that he was simply trying to protect his son, re-establish a relationship that had been damaged by his son's involvement with Michael Jackson, and get to the bottom of what was really going on between a 13-year-old boy, and a 35-year-old man.

Salinas: "It was a big impression on me because the father brought him home for an entire weekend. I was very surprised because he is a big star and to arrive like that without bodyguards without anything I was a bit astonished."

The boy introduced Jackson to Salinas as his best friend. A moment both thrilling, says Salinas, and disturbing.

Salinas: "They were hugging, laughing. They looked very happy, like a couple."

She says the boy's father and step-mother acted as though there was nothing unusual about the visit, except when they instructed Salinas to keep the drapes pulled shut the entire weekend while Jackson was visiting.

Salinas: "The boy's step-mother told me to pull out the trundle bed that goes next to the boy's bed because that's where Mr. Michael was going to sleep."

It was in this spartan room, a room without a TV set Salinas says, that Michael Jackson and the 13-year-old boy spent virtually an entire weekend -- all with the father's full knowledge and consent.

Salinas: "I entered the room the next day to do the housekeeping as I always do. I noticed that no one slept on the bed because there were no signs of anybody having slept there… I suspect that he slept on the bed because there was no other bed."

An undo***ented worker who doesn't speak English, Salinas says she never went to police. She admits she didn't always get along with the father, whom she holds partly responsible for what happened.

Salinas: "In few words, you can say that he sold his son to Michael… They should both be in jail together. Michael, for what he did to the boy and the boy's father for what he did to his son."

Ernie Rizzo says the father used that weekend as a sort of fact-finding mission.

Mankiewicz: "Was there any surreptitious recording done of Michael Jackson and the boy during the time that Jackson was at that house?"

Ernie Rizzo: "Well yeah. Let me say this, the father had related some conversations to me. There were things that I don't think anybody could have heard through that bedroom door. My gut feeling would have been that there may have been a tape recorder in that bedroom."

Rizzo says the father knew he would need powerful evidence, like an audio tape, before he could take on the extremely powerful Jackson.

Rizzo: "It takes a lot of guts to accuse Michael Jackson of molesting. I think before he made his move he wanted to make sure, and I think he made sure."

Mankiewicz: "Even though that would mean exposing his child to someone who he suspected might be molesting him?"

Rizzo: "I mean, I wouldn't do it."

Salinas also suspects that the boy's father rigged the room with a recording device, but she has no evidence of that either. But she says after that Memorial Day visit, everything changed.

Salinas: "After that weekend, the boy's father stopped going to work."

Salinas says that from then on, to say that Jackson was unwelcome in the home would be an understatement.

Salinas: "Michael's name was never mentioned again in the house. That name was prohibited in the house."

The father has refused to talk to Dateline. He did tell a family member that although he told both his son and to others that he'd secretly recorded his boy and Jackson together, he was in fact bluffing, hoping to get his son to confirm or deny his suspicions. And the family member also quotes the father as saying he wishes he had acted on those suspicions much sooner.

Molestation charge first surfaces
Two months later, the boy told a psychiatrist that Jackson had molested him. The psychiatrist believed him and by law had to tell authorities. That triggered a joint investigation involving both Los Angeles police and the Santa Barbara sheriff's department which has Jurisdiction over Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

Jim Thomas was the sheriff in Santa Barbara county. He's now an NBC News consultant.

Thomas: "The case still depended, like this current one does, on whether the people believe the young boy that said he was molested."

Mankiewicz: "On the strength of the complaining witness."

Thomas: "On the strength of the complaining witness."

Thomas says the boy was believable, and they had a strong case. But this wasn't a typical investigation.

Michael Jackson: "There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false."

In August 1993, the scandal hit the press, and with a global audience watching, Jackson and his advisors called the molestation allegations an extortion attempt, which the father has denied. In fact, police investigated and never brought any extortion charges. Still, the father's actions played into that argument because within weeks, the father filed suit asking for $20 million from Michael Jackson.

Jackson: "I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying experience to which I have been subjected."

Meanwhile, authorities continued to gather evidence, including letters from Jackson to the boy, letters private eye Ernie Rizzo says he saw back in 1993.

Mankiewicz: "You saw love notes in the 1993 case?"

Rizzo: "In 1993 all he did was write love notes to the kid."

Mankiewicz: "How many are we talking about?"

Rizzo: "The kid had a handful of them, that Jackson would write him. Telling him how much he loved him, can't wait 'til he sees him again. We're going play on the floor. A little game he used to call, ‘ruba,’ with these little boys. It means you rub me, I rub you."

And perhaps even more revealing, the boy was able to describe marks on Michael Jackson's genitals. When police obtained a search warrant in December allowing them to photograph Jackson's naked body, investigators say the photos matched exactly with what the boy had told them. But despite the evidence they had, authorities didn't file any charges and didn't arrest Jackson.

In January 1994, lawyers for Jackson and for the boy announced they'd settled the civil lawsuit that paid the boy's family an undisclosed sum of money, a figure we now know to be nearly $25 million.

Six months later, frustrated that prosecutors still hadn't charged Jackson with a crime and citing anonymous death threats, the boy's family backed out of the criminal case. The boy would no longer cooperate.

Thomas: "That was a surprise. From the standpoint of what the actual outcome was of our victim not testifying was a blow."

Jackson has said he paid the settlement so he could get on with his career and his life, and that money, which he had plenty of at the time, was no admission of guilt. Also, that he was the victim of a shakedown by a greedy father.

But unlike hi***** song of that time, things weren't so black and white.

Mankiewicz: "Back in 1993, Jackson's legal team, his representatives, were repeatedly saying that there was nothing to the charges because this was just a shake down for money, but in fact those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I mean, it could have been a shake down, and it could have been true."

Thomas: "Yeah. I suppose it could. I think you could advance the argument of who would pay that kind of money if they were innocent?"

A second boy?
It turns out there was more to the story. Dateline has learned that the now famous 13-year-old accuser wasn't the only boy investigators talked to, and he wasn't the only one who came away a millionaire.

A primary focus of the 1993 criminal investigation by L.A. police and the Santa Barbara sheriff's department was to find other boys who authorities suspected might have also been abused by Michael Jackson and who would back up the accusations of the original 13-year-old accuser.

Former Santa Barbara sheriff Jim Thomas says Michael Jackson didn't make it easy for investigators.

Mankiewicz: "I'm guessing in your average case, you call in the person who's accused and you question them."

Thomas: "Sure."

Mankiewicz: "Did that happen in this case?"

Thomas: "No. The attorney's would not allow that to occur."

Mankiewicz: "Jackson's attorneys."

Thomas: "Correct."

If the suspect wasn't talking, Thomas says witnesses were. And based on those interviews, investigators thought there might be more than one victim.

Thomas: "We always believed there were eight to 10 other children out there."

Eight to 10 other children molested by Michael Jackson? Jackson has maintained through the years that his interest in children is entirely non-sexual, but in 1993, it was certainly true that a huge number of children had spent the night at Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

Paper trail... destroyed?
And there was paperwork to show it. Dateline has obtained this copy of the visitor contract every guest to Neverland was required to sign before entering Jackson's private domain. Guests promise not to photograph Jackson or "make any disparaging remarks concerning Michael Jackson" to the outside world.

Its purpose is to protect the reclusive star's privacy and those signed contracts are a record of every visitor to Neverland -- including the kids who were sleeping in Michael Jackson's bedroom.

In 1993, as chief of security at Neverland Ranch, Robert Wegner was keeper of those records.

Robert Wegner: "It was our place to list on a chalkboard in the security office where everybody was sleeping in case there was an emergency the fire department could evacuate."

Mankiewicz: "So you'd know where to find everybody?"

Wegner: "Right, there's no names, just numbers. Like for instance if it's Michael's bedroom, it would be one, which was Michael. And then plus one or plus two that was staying in his room."

But Wegner, who has since published his own book about life at Neverland, says while inappropriate, Jackson's habit of inviting children to share his bedroom wasn't illegal. So he says he never brought his suspicions to the attention of police. Wegner simply continued to work and collect information.

Mankiewicz: "During the three years that you worked for Michael Jackson, how many children spent the night in his bedroom?"

Wegner: "I can't tell you how many children. I can tell you how many times. Now it's in excess of this and I'm being conservative, it was a hundred. Now that doesn't mean 100 children—"

Mankiewicz: "Could have been the same child a number of times."

Wegner: "Right."

Mankiewicz: "Of those children how many were boys and how many were girls?"

Wegner: "To my knowledge I think he had one female girl in there one time, the rest were all boys."

Those records of who'd been sleeping overnight at Neverland and how many times they'd been there might have been useful in a police investigation looking into exactly that. But police never saw those records.

Because at the same time that investigators were executing a search warrant, Wegner says he was on the phone with Anthony Pellicano, Michael Jackson's private investigator, who told Wegner to get the records of who had been at Neverland, and deliver them to Pellicano in Los Angeles.

Wegner: "In fact he called me while I was in Michael's bedroom when LAPD was searching his bedroom he called and told me to do this, because he wanted them out of there before LAPD saw -- figured that they should subpoena those."

Mankiewicz: "Wait a minute. So while the LAPD was searching the ranch back in ‘93, Anthony Pellicano, Mr. Jackson's private investigator called you and said ‘bring me the sign-in sheets of all the people who spent the night at Neverland.’"

Wegner: "That's right. And he identified himself by name."

Mankiewicz: "And you did that? You brought them, you brought him the records?

Wegner: "Yes."

Mankiewicz: "Those records were also backed up on computer?"

Wegner: "Yes."

Mankiewicz: "And you deleted those files?"

Wegner: "I was told to delete them."

Mankiewicz: "Sort of effectively wiping a record of who had spent the night at Neverland?"

Wegner: "That's correct, or who was there."

Mankiewicz: "I can almost hear Mr. Jackson's representatives now in response to what you're saying, which is 'This guy wrote a book, this guy wants to make money off Mr. Jackson just like all those other people did.’"

Wegner: "This was a self-published book. I have not hardly made any money. All I wanted to get out was the information."

Former Santa Barbara sheriff Jim Thomas confirms that when they served that search warrant back in 1993, investigators didn't find everything they were looking for.

Thomas: "Well, there were some things that were missing."

Mankiewicz: "Was it your sense or the sense of other investigators that Neverland had been gone over, sanitized before the search warrant was actually served?"

Thomas: "That was an opinion that I received from some investigators that were there."

Mankiewicz: "Somebody had tipped off Jackson and his people."

Thomas: "Apparently so."

Robert Wegner says the sign-in sheets and other visitor records were never specifically asked for in the search warrant, and so therefore it was no crime to give them to Anthony Pellicano.

Mankiewicz: But did you feel like you were destroying evidence?"

Wegner: "I still felt a certain loyalty to my employer. And I was ordered to take them. So I did."

Both Antohony Pellicano and his former employer, Michael Jackson, turned down Dateline's request for comment about the visitor records at Neverland. After talking to witnesses, investigators ultimately did turn up those eight to 10 names of children they suspected might help corroborate the 13-year-old boy's story. But Thomas says most did not help authorities.

Thomas: "Many of them said that they had spent time with Michael Jackson. They had spent time in his bedroom, but that nothing had happened. Some wouldn't talk to us at all."

Thomas says almost all of the children denied they had been molested.

Thomas: "Of everyone that was talked to, two said yes."

That's right. Back in 1993 besides the original accuser, a second boy told police Jackson touched him intimately. Thomas says that second boy was willing to testify against Michael Jackson, but only if the first boy did as well. The second boy was 12 years old, the son of one of Jackson's employees at Neverland. Thomas says the boy accused Jackson of fondling him through his clothes, no sex.

Thomas: "Primarily, what he would admit to was inappropriate touching, something which in California would be a misdemeanor kind of a crime. But what it did do is that also helped corroborate the other victim. Because you had two boys who we don't believe had ever met giving us the same kinds of statements, saying the same things had happened."

Mankiewicz: "That had to make you think, we've got our man here."

Thomas: "I always felt that way."

But remember, in January 1994 the original 13-year-old boy refused to testify and dropped out of the case, citing concerns about safety after receiving anonymous threats.

Mankiewicz: "Would they have been good witnesses?"

Thomas: "The DA thought so, especially the primary, because he had so much detail. And the secondary boy, it had been a number of years since his molestation occurred. And again, it wasn't to the same degree. But there was a lot of promise in the primary victim's testimony."

Mankiewicz: "Even though the primary victim in the 1993 case dropped out and stopped cooperating, you couldn't go forward with the other victim because what he was alleging was not enough of a crime?"

Thomas: "No. He wouldn't do it if the other one didn't. He was ashamed. He was afraid people would question is sexual orientation."

But shame may not have been the only thing influencing the alleged second victim. Dateline has learned that Michael Jackson paid that boy more than $2 million and the money came with a now familiar agreement: The terms of the settlement could never be discussed publicly.

Thomas: "That's what was so disappointing about not being able to go forward with the 1993 case. It was a tremendous amount of frustration. Because we knew there would be other boys."

Because Jackson's settlements came with that secrecy clause, neither the boys, their parents, or even Jackson himself will comment. But Norma Salinas, who was in the boy's home, has no such restriction. And she says no money could repair the damage done to the boy.

Salinas: "Money doesn't buy everything. And that's what I saw in the boy, even though he had money, he didn't look so happy."

Salinas says the $25 million settlement has financed what has essentially become an underground life for the boy and his family. Dateline obtained an exclusive video shot just before he turned 18 in 1998. It's the last time the boy has been photographed in public. Salinas says the money from the settlement has bought him both privacy and isolation.

He's 24 now, just graduated from college, and still hunted by the tabloids. One Los Angeles photo agency estimates that a picture of him today would fetch a photographer $250,000

Jackson has repeatedly said he could never harm any child. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges in the current case, and although the accusations are 10 years apart, Jackson's defense involves the same assertion today, that he's being accused so that his accusers can sue him for part of his fortune.

Dateline offered Michael Jackson and his representatives a chance to comment on the details in our report. Jackson declined our request.

Ten years passed from the first case to the second, 10 years of charges, counter-charges, 10 years of certainty for some, 10 years of doubt for others and 10 years of questions.

If law enforcement and prosecutors had acted faster, would the case have ended differently? What if a civil suit hadn't been brought? Whatever the answers, a decade ago, sheriff Thomas says investigators were more than just frustrated when their case fell apart.

Mankiewicz: "Because you thought it was going to happen again?"

Thomas: "Yeah. There'd be more boys."

Mankiewicz: "And you think the current case proves you correct?"

Thomas: "I've always felt we were correct. I think the current case may show the rest of the world that we were correct."

Details from the 1993 investigation finally may be heard in court. Dateline has learned that Jackson's original accuser is willing to testify in the upcoming criminal trial against Jackson. Prosecutors have contacted the young man, and might call him as a witness. The trial is set to begin January 31.

1069 days ago
12.

Caroline    

I'm impressed that Alvarez didn't take any money for interviews considering the incredible sums he's been offered. That's a rare quality especially since he said he's been having financial problems.

1069 days ago
13.

Rogue Warrior    

Michael Jackson's Child Molestation Charges

An analysis by Mark McClish
Posted February 8, 2004

Here we go again. Michael Jackson is facing charges he molested a child at his Neverland Ranch. Before we take a look at these most recent charges, let's recap what happened ten years ago.

In 1993, a 13-year-old boy accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. Jackson had befriended the boy in 1992. Soon the boy became a regular guest at Jackson's Neverland Ranch in Santa Ynez, California. Jackson gave the boy gifts and paid for several vacation trips around the world. In 1993, the boy started to spend the night at Jackson's residence. This was not unusual as Jackson would often have children sleep over at his Neverland Ranch. According to the allegations, Jackson had kissed and fondled the boy while they were alone in bed. Allegedly, this repeatedly took place during a four-month period.

At the suggestion of the boy's father, a civil lawsuit was filed in 1993. Jackson denied the accusations. He continued to tour and make public appearances. The boy's father talked to the Jackson camp about a financial settlement while the police continued their investigation. On January 25, 1994, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit paying an undisclosed amount to his accuser. Many believe that he paid between 15 and 20 million dollars. After receiving the settlement, the boy refused to testify in any criminal matters. Therefore, the prosecution was not able to pursue a criminal case.

On December 22, 1993, Jackson gave the following videotaped statement from his Neverland Ranch

"I am doing well and I am strong. As you may already know, after my tour ended I remained out of the country undergoing treatment for a dependancy on pain medication. This medicine was initially prescribed to soothe the excruciating pain that I was suffering after recent reconstructive surgery on my scalp. There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false. As I have maintained from the very beginning, I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying experience to which I have been subjected. I shall not in this statement respond to all the false allegations being made against me since my lawyers have advised me that this is not the proper forum in which to do that. I will say I am particularly upset by the handling of this matter by the incredible, terrible mass media. At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their own conclusion. I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don't treat me like a criminal because I am innocent. I have been forced to submit to a dehumanizing and humiliating examination by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's department and the Los Angeles Police Department earlier this week. They served a search warrant on me which allowed them to view and photograph my body, including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs and any other areas that they wanted. They were supposedly looking for any discoloration, spotting or other evidence of a skin color disorder called vitiligo which I have previously spoken about. The warrant also directed me to cooperate in any examination of my body by their physician to determine the condition of my skin, including whether I have vitiligo or any other skin disorder. The warrant further stated that I had no right to refuse the examination or photographs and if I failed to cooperate with them they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication of my guilt. It was the most humiliating ordeal of my life, one that no person should ever have to suffer. And even after experiencing the indignity of this search, the parties involved were still not satisfied and wanted to take even more pictures. It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare. But if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it. Throughout my life, I have only tried to help thousands upon thousands of children to live happy lives. It brings tears to my eyes when I see any child who suffers. I am not guilty of these allegations. But if I am guilty of anything it is of giving all that I have to give to help children all over the world. It is of loving children of all ages and races, it is of gaining sheer joy from seeing children with their innocent and smiling faces. It is of enjoying through them the childhood that I missed myself. If I am guilty of anything, it is of believing what God said about children, 'Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven.' In no way do I think that I am God, but I do try to be Godlike in my heart. I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false. Again, to my friends and fans, thank you very much for all of your support. Together we will see this through to the very end. I love you very much and may God bless you all. I love you. Goodbye."

The very first thing we notice is that Jackson never said, "I didn't do it" or specifically deny the allegations. That is something we would expect an innocent person to say. Let's examine the denials Jackson does make.

"There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements about me are totally false." All Jackson is telling us is that recently made allegations are false. We know how the press can be and how rumors get started. I am sure there were some allegations concerning Jackson that were not true. However, Jackson is not referring to every allegation made. He is only talking about "disgusting statements made recently." He is only denying those statements which he considered disgusting and which were recently made. The boy's allegations were made public several months before Jackson gave this statement. It appears Jackson is not referring to the accuser's allegations since they were not recently made.

"As I have maintained from the very beginning, (Here is the perfect opportunity for Jackson to issue a denial but instead he goes on to say) I am hoping for a speedy end to this horrifying experience to which I have been subjected."

"I ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn me. Don�t treat me like a criminal because I am innocent." This sounds like a good denial. However, stating that you are innocent is not stating that you did not do it. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Jackson tells us not to make any rash judgements, but wait until all the evidence is presented. Think about it though. Why should we wait? An innocent person would not want you to wait. He would want you to believe right now that he did not commit this crime. If Jackson would come out and say "I didn't do it," I might believe him and label him as innocent, but he hasn't said that. Furthermore, the truth never did come out because Jackson chose to settle this case. We are still waiting to hear the truth.

"The warrant further stated that I had no right to refuse the examination or photographs and if I failed to cooperate with them they would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication of my guilt." Think of how you would phrase this statement in reference to guilt or innocence. Most innocent people would state, "They would introduce that refusal at any trial as an indication that I am guilty." In this statement, it is the authorities belief the person is guilty because of his refusal to cooperate. The way Jackson words it ("my guilt") it sounds as if he is talking about something that he, not the authorities, has already established. Pronouns show possession.

"I am not guilty of these allegations." This still falls short of saying "I didn't do it." Legally, no one is guilty until they are proven guilty.

"I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false." Again we have him claiming he is innocent which is technically true. He is "innocent of any wrongdoing." Jackson may have done things which he does not consider to be wrong. This would also allow him to say he is innocent. A better statement would have been, "I am innocent of molesting this boy." In hindsight, we can see these allegations were not proven false, as Jackson claimed they would be, because he settled the case.

On June 14, 1995, Michael Jackson and his wife Lisa Marie Presley were interviewed by Diane Sawyer on Prime Time Live. The interview started discussing their recent marriage. Sawyer then turned her questions to the 1993 child molestation allegations. Listed below are excerpts from the interview.

Sawyer: [Addressing Michael] Well because I know that you've wanted to express similar sentiments for a long time, I want to ask a few things about the charges. But first I want to establish for the viewers here, there are no ground rules. You have said to me you are not afraid of any questions. So, I wanted that understood by everybody before we proceed. I think I want to begin by making sure that the terms are clear. You have said you would never harm a child. I want to be as specific as I can. Did you ever, as this young boy said you did, did you ever sexually engage, fondle, have sexual contact with this child, or any other child?

Jackson: Never, ever. I could never harm a child, or anyone. It's not in my heart, it's not who I am. And it's not what I'm - I'm not even interested in that.

Sawyer, like many journalists, makes the mistake of asking a compound question. Jackson says, "Never, ever" but which question is he answering? Is he telling us he has never fondled this child? Or, is he telling us he has never fondled any other child? Maybe he is referring to never having sexual contact. Some might say he is answering all of the questions. However, we don't know. Based on the rest of his answer, "I could never harm a child" it appears Jackson is answering, 'Never, ever harm a child." He was never asked if he harmed a child. He was specifically asked about sexual contact with the boy or any other children. Jackson did not answer the specific question. Not answering the question means there is something he does not want to tell us.

The word "even" shows a contrast of ideas. The shortest sentence is the best sentence; "I'm not interested in that." Just before making this denial stumbles in his language, "And it's not what I'm - I'm not..."

Sawyer: And what do you think should be done to someone who does that?

Jackson: To someone who does that? What I think should be done? Gee, I think they need help, in some kind of way, you know.

Here we have Jackson answering the question with two questions. He wasn't looking for clarification because he does not wait for Sawyer to answer his questions. Answering a question with a question usually means the person is stalling for time to think about how he should answer the question. This tells us this was a sensitive question for Jackson.

Michael Jackson loves children. In his December 22, 1993 statement, Jackson said, "It brings tears to my eyes when I see any child who suffers." You would think Jackson like most people would be outraged with someone who molested a child. You would think he would want some type of punishment for the person who would do such a terrible thing. His response, "Gee, I think they need help" does not show that. We have to wonder why he is showing sympathy towards a child molester.

Sawyer: Why did you settle the case then?

Jackson: The whole thing is a lie.

Sawyer: Why did you settle the case? And, it looks to everyone as if you paid a huge amount of money...

Jackson: That's, that's, most of that's folklore. I talked to my lawyers, and I said, "Can you guarantee me, that justice will prevail?" And they said, "Michael, we cannot guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything." And with that I was catatonic. I was outraged!

Sawyer: How much money...

Jackson: Totally outrageous. So, I said, I have to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies, lies. So what I did, we got together again with my advisors and they advised me. It was hands down unanimous decision - resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years!

Sawyer: How much money was...

Jackson: We said, let's get it behind us.

Sawyer: Can you say how much?

Jackson: It's not what the tabloids have printed. It's not all this crazy outlandish money, no it's not at all. I mean, the terms of the agreement are very confidential.

Twice Sawyer had to ask Jackson why he settled the case because Jackson wouldn't answer the question. This means Jackson is withholding information. Jackson finally does give an answer. He states his attorneys could not guarantee what a judge or jury would do. This caused Jackson to become outraged. He still hasn't told us why he settled the case.

Jackson goes on to say he is totally outraged. He needs "to get out from under this nightmare." Jackson meets with his advisors again who believe he should "resolve the case." Jackson's answer is he settled the case because his advisors told him to do so. A good follow-up question would have been, "Why did your advisors tell you to settle the case?" There is the possibility Jackson's advisors knew there was some serious evidence against him. Going to trial may have revealed other personal information about Jackson, and it may have led to his conviction. Perhaps this is why they urged him to settle the case. It is interesting Jackson complains about people lying and "coming forth to get paid." Yet, in the end he paid someone who he wants us to believe was lying.

When it comes to how much money Jackson paid his accuser Sawyer again has to ask him two times. The press had reported that Jackson paid a large amount of money. Jackson responds by saying, "That's, that's, most of that's folklore" and "It's not what the tabloids have printed. It's not all this crazy outlandish money, no, it's not at all." Jackson doesn't tell us it is all folklore, he says that "most" of it is folklore. This qualified statement shows us that some of it is true. The exact dollar amount Jackson paid was to remain confidential. The tabloids were guessing and probably did print the incorrect dollar amount. This allows Jackson to say, "It's not what the tabloids have printed." Only Jackson knows what dollar amount constitutes "crazy and outlandish." What you consider to be crazy may not be crazy for him. After all the guy is a multi-millionaire.

We see that in reference to the 1993 allegations, Jackson was evasive in his answers and he settled the case by paying his accuser a sum of money. Now lets take a look at the current allegations he is facing. On November 20, 2003, Jackson turned himself in to face charges he molested a child at his Neverland Ranch. On the same day, he was released on bond. Instead of giving a video taped statement as he did in 1993, this time Jackson used the internet to release his statements. On his web site he gave the following statement:

"To my fans, friends and family:

As you know, the charges recently directed at me are terribly serious. They are, however, predicated on a big lie. This will be shown in court, and we will be able to put this horrible time behind us.

Because the charges are so serious, I hope you all will understand, on the advice of my attorneys, I will be limited in what I can say about the situation. There will be times when I cannot comment at all. No doubt, this will be frustrating for all of us.

For that reason, I have set up this website to serve as a source of official communications on my case. Any statement that does not appear on this website must be considered unauthorized.

You are right to be skeptical of some of the individuals who are being identified in the mass media as my friends, spokespeople, and attorneys. With few exceptions, most of them are simply filling a desperate void in our culture that equates visibility with insight. We will not engage in speculation. We will not provide running commentary on every new development or allegation du jour. We intend to try our case in the courtroom, not in the public or the media.

I thank you all for your support and understanding.

God bless you,

Michael Jackson"

There are several things we see and don't see in his statement.

"As you know"
We do not know anything unless Jackson tells us. Common sense does tell us these are serious charges. However, we do not know they are based on a "big lie."

"This will be shown in court, and we will be able to put this horrible time behind us."
Jackson uses plural pronouns. He could have personalize it by saying "I will be able to put this horrible time behind me."

Jackson then starts to use the pronoun "I." "I hope you all will understand." "I will be limited in what I can say." However, in the fourth paragraph he goes back to using the plural pronouns. "We will not engage." "We will not provide."

"We intend to try our case in the courtroom, not in the public or the media."
The word "intend" means he may or may not do it. A stronger statement would be "I will try this case in the courtroom." Jackson is telling us that his camp may not try this case in the courtroom. This is probably because the first case was settled out of court.

The biggest thing that is missing from his statement is the same thing that was missing from his 1993 statement. It is the same thing that is usually missing from a guilty person's statement - a denial. Jackson never says, "I didn't do it." "I did not touch that boy." "I did not molest that child." He may be limited in what he can say but he can always issue a denial. That is if he is innocent. When you are guilty it is hard to deny the charges.

On December 25, 2004, Ed Bradley with CBS News interviewed Michael Jackson regarding the new charges he is facing. The interview aired December 28, 2004 on "60... Minutes." Here is a portion of the transcript from that interview which CBS posted on their web site.

Bradley: What is your response to the allegations that were brought by the district attorney in Santa Barbara, that you molested this boy?

Jackson: Totally false. Before I would hurt a child, I would slit my wrists. I would never hurt a child. It's totally false. I was outraged. I could never do something like that.

Bradley is stright forward with charges; "That you molested this boy." Jackson makes a denial of "totally false" but he does not use the word "molested." He tells us specifically that he "would never hurt a child." But he does not specifically address the molestation charges. His statement "I could never do something like that" is not a denial that he did not do it.

Bradley: So, when he would come over, what would he do? What would you do?

Jackson: I'll tell you exactly. When I first saw XXXX, he was total bald-headed, white as snow from the chemotherapy, very bony, looked anorexic, no eyebrows, no eyelashes. And he was so weak, I would have to carry him from the house to the game room, or push him in a wheelchair, to try to give him a childhood, a life. Cause I felt bad. Because I never had that chance, too, as a child. You know? That the-- and so, I know what it-- it felt like in that way. Not being sick, but not having had a childhood. So, my heart go out to those children I feel their pain.

Bradley asks a compound question which makes it easier for the interviewee to not answer one of the questions. Jackson does this by not answering the question "What would he (the boy) do?" Jackson only tells us what he did.

Jackson refers to himself as a "child." Most people will use the words "kid", "little boy" or "little girl" but not "child." When a person refers to himself as a "child" this is an indication the person was sexually molested prior to his 18th birthday. This word is even more important because Jackson is facing child molestation charges.

As soon as he calls himself a "child" he asked a question, "You know?" A question in the middle of a statement draws suspicion. Jackson never expected Bradley to answer the question. By his question he may want Bradley to assume (you know). We assume nothing. Only believe what people tell us.

After asking this question, Jackson stumbles over his words. "That the -- and so, I know what it -- it felt like in that way." The fact that he asked a question and stumbled over his words immediately after referring to himself as a "child" is significant.

Bradley: What was going through your mind when you're taken into a police station, in handcuffs, to have a mug shot taken, that you know is gonna be shown around the world?

Jackson: They did it to try and belittle me, to try and to take away my pride. But I went through the whole system with them. And at the end, I-- I wanted the public to know that I was okay, even though I was hurting.

Ask yourself this same question. What would be going through your mind? Probably the fact that you have not done anything wrong and yet you are being handcuffed and taken to the police station. Jackson never mentions this. Here is an opportunity to proclaim his innocence and he fails to do so.

Jackson then goes on to say that he was mistreated when he was taken into custody.

Bradley: What happened when they arrested you? What did they do to you?

Jackson: They were supposed to go in, and just check fingerprints, and do the whole thing that they do when they take somebody in. They manhandled me very roughly. My shoulder is dislocated, literally. It's hurting me very badly. I'm in pain all the time. This is, see this arm? This is as far as I can reach it. Same with this side over here.

Jackson continues to talk about being handcuffed saying:

Jackson: Yeah. And putting it, they put it in a certain position, knowing that it's going to hurt, and affect my back. Now I can't move. I - I - it keeps me from sleeping at night. I can't sleep at night.

Jackson states that the police "manhandled" him to the point that his shoulder is dislocated "literally." The word "literally" is not needed. Deceptive people will often use additional words to make their statement sound believable.

Jackson wants us to believe the police handcuffed him in such a way "knowing that it's going to hurt." Jackson's arrest was so well do***ented with video tape that it is hard to imagine the police would purposely manhandle him. Jackson is a rock star. Despite the charges, most people (even law enforcement) will be somewhat in awe of him. He acts as if they treated him like he was a belligerent drunk.

Bradley: As-- as we sit here today, do you still think that it's acceptable to share your bed with children?

Jackson: Of course. Of course. Why not? If you're gonna be a pedophile, if you're gonna be Jack the Ripper, if you're gonna be a murderer, it's not a good idea. That I'm not. That's how we were raised. And I met-- I didn't sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it's okay. I slept on the floor. I give the bed to the child."

The words "of course, of course" indicate Jacksons wants us to take for granted that he believes it is acceptable to share his bed with children. Had he answered "Yes" that would show a stronger commitment to his statement.

Jackson tells us he believes it is okay to share his bed with children. He then goes on to say "If you're gonna be a pedophile, if you're gonna be Jack the Ripper, if you're gonna be a murderer, it's not a good idea. That I'm not." What is he referring to when he says "That I'm not"? Is he talking about not being a pedpohile, Jack the Ripper and a murderer? Or is he only talking about not being one of those things?

His use of the word "even" makes us wonder if he is being truthful when he denies sleeping with kids. Later in the interview, he repeats this statement.

Bradley: Do you know how this looks to a lot of people? I mean, do you understand that?

Jackson: How does what look?

Bradley: How the fact that you -

Jackson: Know why? People think sex. They're thinking sex. My mind doesn't run that way. When I see children, I see the face of God. That's why I love them so much. That's what I see.
Jackson answers the question with a question. This means he was asked a sensitive question. He was not looking for clarification because he does not allow Bradley to answer his question "How does what look?"

"People think sex. They're thinking sex. My mind doesn't run that way." Since he was talking about how people "think" it would have been a stronger denial if Jackson would have said "My mind doesn't think that way."

Bradley: Do you know any other man your age, a 45-year-old man, who shares his bedroom with children?

Jackson: Of course. Not for sex. No. That's wrong.

Bradley: Well, let me-- let me say, from my perspective, my experience, I don't know any 45 year old men, who are not relatives of the children, who share their bedroom with other children.

Jackson: Well, what's wrong with sharing your bed? I didn't say I slept in the bed. Even if I did sleep in the bed, it's okay. I am not going to do anything sexual to a child. It's not where my heart is. I would never do anything like that. That's not Michael Jackson. I'm sorry. That's someone else.

Jackson answered Bradley's question with "of course" which means he may not know of a 45-year-old man who shares his bedroom with children.

Here we have the questionable statement again - "Even if I did sleep in the bed it's okay."

Jackson uses the word "never" in his denial; "I would never do anything like that." The word "never" is a weak denial. "I did not have sex with children" is a much stronger deinal.

In denying he had sex with children, Jackson says, "That's not Michael Jackson. I'm sorry. That's someone else." We all know what he is trying to say here. But, he may be telling us that he has a split personality. Michael Jackson would never do these things, but "someone else" might. We see possible further evidence of a split personality when he apologizes for that someone else.

Bradley: Michael, what would you say to you-- your fans, who have supported you through all of this, and-- and who today, some of them might have questions? What would you say to them?

Jackson: Well, I would tell them I love them very much. And I-- I-- they've learned about me, and know about me from a distance. But if you really want to know about me, there's a song I wrote, which is the most honest song I've ever written. It's the most autobiographical song I've ever written. It's called, "Childhood." They should listen to it. That's the one they really should listen to. And thank you for your support, the fans around the world. I love you with all my heart. I don't take any of it for granted. Any of it. And I love them dearly, all over the world.

Here is another opportunity for Jackson to say "I didn't do it." "I did not molest that boy." But, as he does in previous statements throughout the years, he neglects to say such a thing. We will all have to wait and see how things turn out this time for Michael Jackson.

UPDATE

On September 3, 2004, "Dateline NBC" correspondent Josh Mankiewicz investigated allegations that more than one boy accused Michael Jackson of abuse in 1993, and how the case has been kept quiet until now. "Dateline NBC" learned what evidence authorities had against Michael Jackson, as well as details about the civil case against him that have remained sealed in the basement of the Los Angeles county courthouse for more than a decade. Jackson's accuser swore in a declaration filed in the civil suit against Jackson:

"Michael Jackson masturbated me many times both with his hand and with his mouth. Michael Jackson told me that I should not tell anyone what happened. He said this was a secret."

Click here to read the complete story filed by "Dateline NBC"

1069 days ago
14.

viewer    

was a tense moment there for harvey. thought they might ask how much tmz offered. ;)

1069 days ago
15.

Rogue Warrior    

ttp://www.spike.com/articles/v9wce5/michael-jackson-fans-are-committing-suicide

Michael Jackson Fans are Committing Suicide

According to Michael Jackson's largest online fan club, MJ fanatics have been recently committing suicide because of the pop star's tragic death.

The Sun is reporting that up to 12 die-hard Jackson followers have taken their own lives since his passing on Thursday.

Gary Taylor, who runs MJJcommunity.com, recently said, "I know there has been an increase, I now believe the figure is 12. I believe there may have been one Briton who has taken their life. It is a serious situation that these people are going through but Michael Jackson would never want this. He would want them to live."

This crazy news came to light when it was revealed that a Jackson lookalike in Russia cut his wrists after Michael's death was announced last week. The fan, Pável Talaláyev, was found bleeding heavily at his home in Moscow just hours after it was announced that Jackson had died. Luckily for him, an ambulance crew found him in time and managed to save his life. Apparently others have not been so fortunate.

The most insane aspect of this story has to be the conversation that took place in the ambulance after the paramedics had saved Talaláyev from death.

One of the paramedics stated, "He was in a terrible state and kept on saying: 'It's all the same to me. I'm going to kill myself. It's the worst tragedy of my life and I don't want to live any more. I don't know why you saved my life, I want to be with him'."

Pável is supposedly Russia's most famous Jacko lookalike and apparently modeled himself after MJ from the age of nine.

Hot damn.
=======================
Some of YOU need to get busy!

1069 days ago
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web