Michael And Alex Montagu, Jr. (Photo Courtesy of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster and Wendy Buford Montagu).
“From Movie Stars To Us Ordinary Folks, Everyone Is At Risk From Those Without Conscience”-Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
Over the next week or so, I’m going to be looking at some very special, and disturbing, cases. I am going to be taking a close-up look at some well known and not so well known Michael Jackson stalkers. For the purpose of this series, I am not so much concerned with those (sometimes funny; sometimes scary) stories of crazy, obsessed stalker fans-something that pretty much goes with the territory of all celebrities. Rather, I am focusing exclusively on a few individuals whose psychopathic stalking and/or obsession with Michael Jackson went above and beyond the pale, to actually causing him duress, the necessity for an FBI investigation, and in some cases such as the one I am looking at today, fabricated child molestation allegations that could have gone so far as helping to convict him in 2005, had certain individuals succeeded in their evil schemes! We all know, of course, that two of the most famous examples of mentally disturbed persons who were allowed access into Michael Jackson’s life resulted in the most damaging allegations made against him-Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo.
Even Way Back Then, Death Threats Were A Routine Part Of Life For Little Michael And His Brothers.
But dealing with disturbed individuals and psychopaths had been a part of Michael’s life from the time he was a small child singing in The Jackson 5. At the group’s height of popularity in the early 70′s, death threats became just a part of the routine. Imagine being as young as Michael was when he sang for The Jackson 5, and having to be scared to go onstage because you never know when some crazy nutjob just might make good on his threat to off you onstage! Whether the threats came from jealous boyfriends, or deranged girls who imagined they had been spurned, or even from mafia figures, this was all part of the life Michael grew up with! By middle age, he had spent roughly 45 years as a person who had been constantly stalked, harassed, and threatened in every way imaginable (trust me, we as fans only know a portion-a small slice-of what he actually endured from some of these people!). If he was “paranoid” by middle age, as some have said, then certainly he had every right to be! Very few of us, after all, have lived the life that Michael Jackson lived. What’s more, very few child stars make the transition into a mega successful adult superstardom the way that he did. All factors combined, that meant Michael spent an incredible 45 years living from within a fish bowl, always under the protective wing of security, never really enjoying the freedom that most of us take for granted. A life spent in show business, as the most successful entertainer in the world, has its perks.
But along with those perks comes a lot of sacrifice. For starters, there is no sense of normalcy. Secondly, you become vulnerable. Third, especially if you are Michael Jackson, you become a target. And after settling the Chandler case in 1994, a whole new can of worms was opened. From that time forward, Michael Jackson would become an easy target for fabricated stories of sexual molestation against children (but almost always concocted and masterminded by adults; not the children themselves. This makes sense; after all, it is the adults who know that any money awarded to their children will be entrusted to them until the children are of legal age). We all know that one such case eventually ended up as a criminal trial, for which Michael was acquitted on all 14 counts. But the Arvizo case was by no means the only one. That case, too, would lead to some very-ahem-”interesting” phantom cases and equally bizarre phantom victims.
Some of these phony cases have already been well exposed and written about, such as the accusations masterminded by Rodney Allen, for which Diane Dimond went on a Canadian goose chase at Hard Copy’s expense in 1995 (and which I’ll write more about later), Daniel Kapon, Terry George, and others, all of which I will be looking at in due course.
Alexander Montagu, Aka 13th Duke of Manchester, Aka Alexander Manchester, Aka Baron Alexander, Aka…Oh Heck, I Give Up!
But there is one phantom case that has received very little exposure, at least until now. Yet it was a case that went so far as a declaration and a court subpoena in 2005 for its perpetrator, Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. Perhaps this bogus allegation wouldn’t be nearly so bizarre, except for who it happened to involve-a distant cousin of Princess Diana, who, as it turns out (royal title aside)has a very long history of psychopathic behavior!
I had vaguely heard of the name Lord Alexander Montagu in connection with the 2005 trial. Many may recall him as the witness who went on MSNBC to proclaim that he had been “threatened” not to testify.
Jackson witness says he’s been threatened
Montagu claims caller has told him to stay away from trial
By Mike Taibbi
NBC News
updated 3/25/2005 12:02:32 PM ET
EXCLUSIVE
LOS ANGELES — A member of the British aristocracy who has been subpoenaed to testify for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson child molestation case told NBC News’ Mike Taibbi that he has received threats telling him to stay away from the trial.
Lord Alex Montagu, who is listed in Burkes Peerage as Viscount Mandeville Baron Montagu Alexander Charles David Drogo Montagu and as the Duke of Manchester on his passport, spoke exclusively with NBC News, in violation of Judge Rodney Melville’s gag order, because he says he has received telephone threats.
According to Montagu, the caller told him “to leave the country and don’t come back until after the hearing.
“I’ve had the front of my house vandalized, I’ve had my car tires slashed,” Montagu said. He doesn’t know who’s responsible for the threats and vandalism.
Montagu has been subpoenaed to testify because of his and his son Alexander’s experiences with Michael Jackson at the singer’s Neverland Ranch in the late ’90s.
Melville is expected to rule on Monday whether testimony about prior accusations of molestation against the singer can be used in evidence in this trial. If Melville does allow such testimony, Montagu could be a very important witness for District Attorney Thomas Sneddon. According to NBC News, his testimony would complement other available stories about Jackson referring to wine as “Jesus juice” and about the singer and his friendships with young boys.
Montagu says Jackson met his son at a memorial service for Princess Diana, and then started calling the boy, frequently. He said the singer and his son became fast friends.
“[My son] was sworn to secrecy to Michael,” Montagu said. “I don’t really to any total degree know what happened. I asked my son, he didn’t tell me. And my son’s very fond of Michael but he’s got his secrets.”
Montagu knows of nothing improper that Jackson did with his son during two visits to Neverland, but because of the gag order he wouldn’t give details about those visits.
Montagu said he decided to speak with NBC News because of his family’s fear, and the ordeal of just waiting.
“If I have to testify, [I ask] that it be done as soon as possible, because I just want to get this over and done with and get on with my life,” Montagu said.
And what does the Duke of Manchester think now of the King of Pop?
“If Mr. Jackson’s guilty of something he should be prosecuted,” Montagu said. “If he’s not guilty of something then he should be let go with an apology.”
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293772/ns/today-entertainment/t/jackson-witness-says-hes-been-threatened/
In 2007, CNN even listed his “story” as among the “most intriguing details” that the jury never got to hear!
Diana’s cousin, the duke
Michael Jackson’s hide-and-seek games with the 5-year-old son of a duke did not come in when the judge denied testimony from Alexander Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu, who also goes by Alexander Montagu Manchester — the 13th Duke of Manchester and cousin of Princess Diana. The duke claims that after a family visit to Neverland, Jackson would call his Newport Beach, Calif., home at all hours, crying and asking to see his “hide and seek” partner.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.jackson10/index.html
Exaggerating His Relationship To Princess Diana Seems To Be Just One Of His Many Delusions of Grandeur.
By the way, it is worth noting that although Montagu “claims” to be a second cousin to Princess Diana, his actual relationship, according to Pillsbury-Foster, is much more distant than that. Born and raised in Australia, he is actually a distant cousin several times removed, and at least according to this bizarre article, merely 56th in line to the throne (and also, it seems, quite willing to sell his title when in a pinch!):
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910923&slug=1307000
But I didn’t know much about Montagu personally, or the specific details of the story-cough “scheme” cough- he had concocted against Michael Jackson until I ran across this article from Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. Pillsbury-Foster, an author whose avid interest in psychopathy has led her to an extensive case study of Alexander Montagu and a book on the subject, published this article on her own blog and on the Freedom’s Phoenix website (links to both will be provided at end of the article). I was immediatly interested in Ms. Pillsbury-Foster’s account of Montagu’s scheme, for two reasons. First of all, she struck me as being someone who was not so much a fan of Michael Jackson, but rather, an objective journalist whose primary goal has been, as she put it, to get the truth out regarding this story and to help others to understand how psychopathic personalities operate. Secondly, as I was to learn later, much of the information contained here comes directly from Wendy Montagu herself, the second wife of Alexander and mother of Alex Montagu, Jr (the couple’s son who was unwittingly put into the middle of this scheme, despite the fact that Alex, Jr himself only has happy memories of the brief time that he spent in the company of Michael Jackson!). Wendy Montagu, who was herself often a victim of her husband’s manipulation and abuse (not the least being the fact that Alexander never revealed to her that he had been previously married and never divorced!) was not only a first-hand witness to her husband’s scheme, but helped undo his plans by refusing to support his story in 2005. With Wendy’s lack of cooperation, Montagu knew there was no way his story could hold up under close scrutiny, let alone cross examination!
After reading this article, I was so blown away and yet saddened and disgusted by this little-known story that I contacted Melinda Pillsbury-Foster immediatly and asked permission to reprint her article. I was surprised when my phone rang barely ten minutes after submitting the email! As it turned out, Ms. Pillsbury-Foster was thrilled to learn that someone else was as equally passionate as herself about getting this story “out there” so that more will know just how many lives have been affected by this person’s actions. Of course, my interest in Alexander Montagu stems solely from what he did-or attempted to do-to Michael Jackson. But for Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, it has been an even more personal battle-a battle to support a victimized friend. Through my phone conversations with Ms. Pillsbury-Foster, I was able to gain some insight into what life has been like for her friend Wendy Montagu and now 18-year-old Alex, Jr, both of whom have not only stood up for the truth in regards to the false allegations made against Michael Jackson by their ex husband and father, respectively, but have also paid a heavy price with the emotional, physical, and mental toll that psychopathy has exacted on their own lives. For those of you familiar with the Chandler case (and I’m assuming that is most of you who read this blog on a regular basis) you may find a lot of what Wendy and Alex, Jr have endured to be hauntingly familiar to that of June and Jordan Chandler, who likewise were in many ways victimized by Evan Chandler-the only difference being that young Alex, Jr refused to go along with his father’s scheme, and to this day has staunchly denied any wrongdoing on Michael Jackson’s part.
Michael As We Knew Him…Vulnerable And Sweet, But An Easy Prey For “Those Without Conscience”
Without further ado, here is Melinda Pillsbury-Foster’s article in its entirety. Note: passages that are underlined are Melinda Pillsbury-Foster’s emphasis; boldfaced passages are my emphasis. The original article also contains quite a few embedded links, which are worth checking out for anyone seriously interested in following up on this story. I cannot embed them here, but will provide the actual links where appropriate.
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2012
Michael Jackson – Stalked by a psychopath
Protecting the public from psychopaths.
From movie stars to us ordinary folk, everyone is at risk from those without conscience.
by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
Michael Jackson stood trial for a crime. He was found to be innocent, but the cost exacted on Jackson’s career and on him emotionally, financially, and physically, was enormous. Jackson was an unusual man, uniquely talented, whose art changed the world. He was victimized by those without conscience who saw his vulnerabilities and were determined to victimize him. As bad as it was, it could have been worse.
You have heard about the Arvizo family. But another man Jackson trusted, and invited into his home, also lied without conscience. If the Duke of Manchester had had just a little more credibility Michael Jackson might not have avoided being unjustly convicted of a crime he did not commit.
It is time all of us take steps to reduce the risk presented by psychopaths. We have the tools. We just need to use them.
On one level, Alexander Montagu is a hereditary peer of the realm holding multiple titles, the highest being Duke of Manchester. On another, he is a man whose life has focused him on victimizing others.
The Duke of Manchester, has been identified as, “having psychopathic tendencies,” since 1984, when Dr. Williamson of Pine Lodge Clinic, conveyed this opinion to Montagu’s solicitor, Mr. Voltan Varszenghy, who repeated this assessment to Judge Lisink, during a hearing held September 6, 1984, this appearing in the transcript from the hearing.
Montagu had inherited the title of Viscount of Mandeville, given to the ducal heir in June, 1985 at the death of his uncle, the previous Duke. His father, Angus, had succeeded to the title, becoming the 12 th Duke. Alex’s reaction was recorded in this article, published in Australia,June 5 th, titled, “Mary and Alexander: It’s a title fight.”
The Manchester estates were even then were seriously depleted in status due to the excesses of previous holders.
Splendour and Squalor, the book by Marcus Scriven, includes the shocking excesses of the 12 th duke, barely touching on the 13 th, Alex. This will most likely change as Scriven has not given up following the ducal antics and is very aware of the problems presented by psychopaths.
In 1985 Alex had not yet developed a reliance on using his title to gain continuing access to credulous potential victims. His methods had been more direct.
This changed. After being released from prison in Australia in 1985 Montagu began traveling, eventually ending up again arrested for lying upon entry to Canada in September, 1991, as reported by the Sun Journal from a release credited to AP. The article, titled, Diana’s Cousin Selling Title appeared September 21, 1991. His techniques began to focus on the use of his title.
A spate of articles, published between 1986 and 1991 follow, all are shocking and filled with direct quotes from the Viscount. Then, a calm fell on his life. Although he had neglected to get a divorce from his first wife, Marion Stoner, Alex had, again, married.
Unknown to the bride, the marriage was bigamous. Alex then faced a serious need to avoid deportation from the United States. He signed the marriage license as ‘never married,’ and failed to mention even Stoner’s name to Wendy Buford, who soon afterward gave birth to their son, Alexander, Jr., according to Buford Montagu.
Over the next 15 years the couple was evicted 11 times, according to Wendy, each time because Alexander spent the money for rent or the mortgage elsewhere. Psychopaths court chaos because it keeps their victims off balance and under control.
Wendy was never permitted to know anything about their finances. Asking if the rent was paid was pointless. Alexander would always lie, Wendy said.
When evicted for non-payment of rent or mortgage, Alex focused anger on the landlord, routinely destroying the property. This has included pouring cement down the toilets. according to his present wife Laura. With Montagu the barrage of such behavior was constant and consistent, according to Wendy.
Alexander’s mother, Lady Mary, evidently realizing the potential for a public relations disaster, carried the paperwork for the Stoner divorce in 1996, asking Alexander only to sign and return papers. This was accomplished and the divorce secured. However, Montagu and his mother, Lady Mary Montagu, still failed to mention the issue to the wife and daughter-in-law who was enduring continual chaos, trying to do the right thing in her lights.
Alex did not legitimize their union even though another child was born in 1999.
This was the status quo when Diana, Princess of Wales, died in 1997. As people around the world reeled in disbelief, many looked for the opportunity to say ‘goodby’ to a woman who had touched them deeply.
Michael Jackson was, also, an ardent admirer of Princess Diana. Jackson was moved to pay his respects to Britain’s Princess but was unwelcome in London. Instead, he attended the private memorial service taking place in Los Angeles, September 13, 1997, at St. James Episcopal Church as a guest of the Manchesters, returing with them to their hotel afterward for refreshments.
An AP photo of the group leaving the service appears here:
The woman at the right of Jackson is Wendy Buford Montagu. Once at the hotel, Jackson made the acquaintance of Alexander, Jr.. Charming movies were taken of the 4 year old lad playing hide-and-go-seek with the megastar, oblivious to the identity of his new friend, but delighted to find someone willing to take time to play.
Jackson invited the family to Neverland on Martin Luther King Day in 1998, where young Alex again delighted in spending time with his mother and her friend and child, with Jackson on the rides at Neverland.
While young Alex never saw Jackson again, according to both him and his mother, Wendy Buford Montagu, these moments remained very much alive for him, bright points in a life otherwise often frightening because of his manipulative father.
Jackson had settled a law suit filed for sexual abuse by Jordan Chandler and his parents on January 25, 1994 for $15331250. This occurred three years before Alexander, Duke of Manchester, asked Jackson back to his hotel and introduced him to his young son.
FROM THE WIKI: On July 2, 1993, in a private telephone conversation, Chandler was tape-recorded as saying,
—Evan Chandler”
In the same recording Chandler dismisses all concern for his son.
In 2003 Jackson was, again, targeted, and again it appears financial gain might have been the motivating factor. Before filing a criminal complaint the potential litigant contacted Barry Rothman, the attorney who had handled the 1993 case, according to this article on Wikipedia. Although people who had signed into the register at the Jackson estate in Santa Ynez had been contacted, no credible victims of possible sexual assault were eventually included with the case of Gavin Arvizo.
People v. Jackson was a media circus, costing tax-payers millions. Jackson was found innocent after exhaustive efforts by Los Angeles DA Tom Sneddon.
As a Jackson trial became likely, news of the previous multi-million dollar settlement rippled through the media.
The subject was discussed by Wendy Montagu and her husband, the Duke. During this time Wendy received a call from Montagu telling her he had been subpoenaed. Wendy was unaware Alexander had provided a Declaration for the court. The Declaration was entered into the court record on April 20 th, 2005.
Alexander Montagu’s Declaration:
According to Wendy Montagu, and her son, Alexander, Jr., now an adult, the declaration is a fabric of lies with only the faintest relationship to the truth.
Wendy stated, for publication, to her knowledge her husband had never met Jackson before the morning of the Princess Diana Memorial on September 13, 1997. She recalls the introduction took place through a quasi-business acquaintance of Montagu’s who owned a car refurbishing business in Beverly Hills. Montagu, an obsessive name-dropper, according to Wendy, occasionally mentioned having met Janet Jackson, never Michael.
The agreement with Jackson was for him to attend the service as their guest and then accompany them to their hotel to meet their son. Room service was ordered for a simple snack. Jackson played hide-and-Seek with then four year old Alex. Wendy said she was sure Jackson was there less than two hours, not the twelve hours mentioned in the Declaration.
Afterward, Michael called young Alex a few times and spoke briefly to him. There were less than five phone calls, as Wendy recalls. Jackson allowed young Alex and his father to spend the night at Neverland, in his absence on December 31, 1997. Father and son occupied a guest house with twin beds, never seeing Jackson.
Wendy, a friend, and their two children, along with Alex, the Duke, spent the day at Neverland on Martin Luther King Day in February, 1998. Jackson joined them later in the day, allowing filming of the inside of his home and himself as he, young Alex, and the rest of the party, enjoyed the rides at Neverland. Wendy said she sensed Jackson felt uncomfortable with this unexpected invasion of his private space.
Although they never saw Michael again Alex attempted to arrange the sale of a plane to the star, for which he hoped to get a commission.
Wendy Montagu found out about Alex’s involvement and the Declaration when she began receiving calls from her friends on March 25 th, telling her about Alex’s interview on MSNBC. She was stunned to hear her husband’s claims their home and car had been vandalized. Nothing of the kind had taken place.
Not only did Alex fail to mention it at the time, he and Wendy had carried on occasional chats about the pleasant time they had enjoyed with Jackson. The only sour note Wendy remembered was the non-purchase by Jackson of the plane, on which Alex hoped to make a commission.
Alex may have finally understood he would not be one of a larger number of complaining parties. His testimony would not stand up under scrutiny because Wendy, and the family friend who had also visited Neverland, would contradict his statements in every instance. It is impossible to know what was going through his mind at having made such an outrageous charge.
But this is not atypical of psychopaths. Psychopaths lie. Less intelligent ones, like the Duke, fail to think out the consequences, being used to carrying off lies by using threats, character assassination, and bluffing.
Psychopaths change the story without reference to reality.
In 2006 the Duke, never legally married to Wendy, attempted to force her to pay alimony and child support through a plan which included a perjured account of violence against himself and nine months of stalled attempts to keep the children from seeing their mother. Ultimately, the court awarded physical custody to Wendy. The Duke left the area, abandoning the children and never paying support.
Psychopaths are a danger to everyone of us. They use the system for their own ends. There are no limits to their lies or to their desire to either use, or destroy, those around them, costing us in countless ways, they work to kill our trust in each other because in the resulting chaos they are find power and so benefit.
Young Alex has survived. Michael Jackson is dead. It is impossible to assess the impact Alexander Montagu had, individually, on Jackson’s health and well being. We will never know. The predator does not always bring down its prey. But we should remember and be warned.
As humanity moves toward understanding the impact psychopathy has had on every part of our world we face a multitude of choices, together and as individuals. A young man, Alexander Montagu, Jr., chooses to remember wonderful moments spent with a world-famous icon, a kind and aware man who could participate in the small delights of childhood. Young Alex did not know Michael Jackson was a global icon. He knew him as a friend who listened and cared. Alex Jr., now 18, is narrating the videos of himself and Jackson so you, too, can see a side of Jackson captured in time.
“Always find the good and hold on to it. Good is more powerful than evil, bringing with it the power to heal the deepest wounds.”- Moments of Happiness, My Time with Michael Jackson narrated by Alex Montagu, Jr.
Although not included in Pillsbury-Foster’s original article, here is the defense’s motion to have Montagu’s testimony excluded (thanks to sanemjfan, who provided this link):
Note what is said at Lines 27 and 28:
“There is something disturbing about how badly Mr. Manchester wants to testify about an incident in which his own son denies that any wrongful attacks occurred.”
Flirting With The Princess
Yesterday I spoke with Pillsbury-Foster again, as there were some points in her article that I wished to further clarify. One big question I had was why Wendy Montagu had said that Michael wasn’t “welcomed” in London at Princess Diana’s memorial. This was, after all, the opportunity that presented Alexander Montagu the open crack he needed to get a foothold into Michael’s life, by inviting him to the Los Angeles memorial as the Montagus’ guest.
According to Pillsbury-Foster, who has spoken at length with Wendy on this subject, it was not a personal snub on the part of the Royal Family, but it was simply felt that Michael’s celebrity would present a huge distraction to the events, and Diana’s family did not consider him enough of a personal friend to warrant an invitation. Of course, this goes against the grain of what Michael himself revealed here in this clip from Private Home Movies:
It could have been that the family was simply not aware of just how close Michael and Diana became, or perhaps they were but didn’t feel the friendship to be “appropriate.” (I am speculating here, of course). From Wendy’s perspective and what she knew of the family’s intentions, it was simply felt that Michael was not a close enough personal friend of the princess to warrant the kind of media attention, security demands, and distractions that his presence would cause. I suppose we can chalk this up as one more example of why it was sometimes so sad to be Michael Jackson-even as simple a gesture as attending a friend’s funeral wasn’t just something he could do like anyone else!
However, something else occurred to me as I read through the claims made in Montagu’s declaration. According to the specific wording of the declaration, it was Montagu himself who allegedly informed Michael that he would not be allowed to attend Diana’s memorial in London! Let’s look at this passage quoted from “Summary Of Facts” on page 3 of the document (refer to the link provided above if you wish to view the actual document). I have highlighted the passages that are important to our purpose here, as statements that have been directly disputed and/or that help reveal just how Montagu laid the groundwork for his would-be master plan:
Alexander Montagu Manchester had known Michael Jackson since the 1980′s. He resides in Newport Beach, California and supplements his income by arranging sales and leases of excutive jet aircraft. He had been asked by defendent to arrange the purchase of an executive jet.
Defendent called Mr. Manchester after the death of Mr. Manchester’s cousin Princess Diana. Defendent asked if he could attend Diana’s funeral in England. Mr. Manchester told defendent he could not attend the funeral but invited him to attend the memorial service for Princess Diana in Los Angeles in September 1997. Michael Jackson visited Mr. Manchester, his wife, and son in a hotel in Los Angeles for 12 hours. During that time he played “hide and seek” with Manchester’s five-year-old son, Alex.
Montagu, it seems, preyed on Michael’s disappointment and hurt by offering his invitation to the LA memorial as a kind of consolation. In the AP photo which Pillsbury-Foster linked to in her article, you can see that the Montagus (Alexander and Wendy) are sticking close by Michael’s side. But the highlighted statements in the declaration still beg a lot of questions. First of all, I have to wonder why, with all the connections Michael Jackson had, he would have been inclined to rely solely on the word of this distant cousin of Diana’s? Surely there were other, more direct channels he could have gone through in order to inquire about permission to attend her funeral in London! But even giving benefit of the doubt here, what seems apparent is that Montagu used his brief connection with Michael via his airplane business-and his ties to Diana’s family-as an opportunity to set Michael up.
The fall-out over Michael’s failure to purchase the airplane as promised also has an interesting parallel to the Chandler case, does it not? After all, it was Michael’s refusal to finance Evan Chandler’s screenplays and to offer him a partnership in Lost Boys Productions that helped fuel Evan’s rage to “get back” at Michael!
The Montagus In Happier Times…Alexander, Wendy, and Alex, Jr.
Now, as to whether Montagu actually had a conscious plan in place at the time, or if he was simply motivated in hindsight years later due to the publicity generated by the Arvizo trial, is hard to say. Montagu certainly, however, would have been well aware of the Chandler settlement that had taken place only three years before. In any event, it’s interesting that he went out of his way to not only ensure Michael spent time with his son, but that every moment of that time was diligently recorded, including their hide and seek game and their day spent on the rides at Neverland. Remember Wendy’s statement in Pillsbury-Foster’s article-which I highlighted-about how “uncomfortable” Michael seemed to her about having his “privacy invaded” in this manner? Sure, he went along with it because he was gracious enough to not be rude (and besides, a parent wanting a videotape of their child’s day at Neverland probably did not seem like an unusually odd request, at least not enough so to make a huge stink of it). Still, he may have been sensing a rat. Contrary to popular opinion, Michael did not continue to just willy-nilly exhibit the same vulnerable behavior that had gotten him into trouble with the Chandler situation. As has been confirmed by Frank Cascio and several others who knew him, Michael was much more alert to potential compromising situations and dangerous people after 1993, but nevertheless, his huge heart and generosity still got the better of him. But my guess here is that he was already having second thoughts about Montagu’s intentions.
“Wendy Said She Sensed Jackson Became Uncomfortable With This Invasion Of His Private Space”-Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
- Also, the 12 hours mentioned in the declaration was a blatant exaggeration, according to Wendy, who as mentioned in the article, stated that Michael’s visit with them at the hotel was, at most, two hours.
Wendy’s own testimony and eye witness account of the events of that day also blatantly dispute Montagu’s claims to have known Michael Jackson since the 1980′s. This is an important detail because Montagu’s story as given in the declaration implies a familiarity with Michael Jackson that simply did not exist, according to Wendy. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, who has had many conversations at length with Wendy on what actually transpired that day, said that when Michael and Alexander Montagu met that day, their conversation in the car was clearly the kind of “breaking the ice” and “small talk” conversation that is normal for two people meeting for the very first time, not two people who have been well acquainted for over ten years! She said it was very clear that the two men had never met prior to that day.
At this point, it may be important to let you guys know that, yes, Alexander Montagu and his current wife Laura Manchester, or The Duchess of Manchester, as she bills herself, have waged their own internet war on Wendy and Melinda Pillsbury-Foster to dispute these claims. As far as whatever personal animosity may exist between these parties, it is not my concern other than how this impacts Wendy Montagu’s denial of the story that Montagu presented in his declaration. As far as Laura Manchester is concerned, it is not so much a personal stake in whether any wrongdoing ever occurred on Michael’s part with Alex, Jr., as simply what seems to be a desire on her part to clear up any besmirchment on the family name. So naturally her desire is to paint her husband in the best light possible (i.e, as someone who wouldn’t lie about such things!). As “proof” she has offered up this clipping of an art auction held at Hayvenhurst “in 1984″ which apparently Montagu attended:
Notice the caption beneath the photo, nestled in with all of the celebrity name dropping, says:
“The Duke of Manchester knew the Jackson family for many years.” And, of course, the article headline states “Jackson Hosts Art Auction In His Home.”
Ah, but here’s what that headline doesn’t tell you: Michael Jackson himself did NOT attend that function! Here is the proof!
Now, sharp readers may already be saying: But wait, the event in the first article is stated to have occurred in ’84, not ’88. How is this “proof?” Well, it’s very easy to simply play with the math, fudge on the dates a little, and rely on the public’s fuzzy memories to stretch the truth. Here is what Melinda Pillsbury-Foster said on her blog concerning the Jackson-hosted art auction:
It does not appear Alex, then Viscount Mandeville, was involved in any charitable work. He seems to have attended as the date of Lia Belli and not because he was involved in any substantial way with the event, which took place April 8, 1988, not 1984, as stated by Laura Montagu.
Four years can make an enormous difference in any life.
On April 8, 1984 Alex had been married to former Marion Stoner for around three weeks. He was living with her in Australia. Multiple legal filings document his location and activities for the year of 1984.
March 17, 1984 – Marion and Alex are married from her mother’s home, the wedding taking place in their garden.
Marion Stoner was a model, aged 32, when in November of 1983, she met Alexander Montagu.
Stoner had been in a relationship and had two children, but never married.
Due to violence and abuse by Alexander Marion Montagu left Alexander on May 21, 1984 and filed for legal separation.
There is much more in that vein if you are interested in all of the details of Montagu’s whereabouts in 1984 and his relationship with first wife Marion Stoner, but for my purposes ( and I assume most of you reading this blog) the primary interest in this information is that it simply proves to what lengths this man has gone to in order to tie his name to that of Michael Jackson (as well as Princess Diana). It is very obvious to even the most casual reader that the event which the LA Times describes in 1988 is the same event as that described in the article posted on flickr. I am inclined to agree with Pillsbury-Foster’s statement:
“Laura has again busied herself fishing around in the scrapbook Alex uses to impress his potential dates, according to Wendy Buford Montagu.”
And as she so aptly pointed out to me during our phone conversation, is it coincidence that the clipping Laura is using as “proof” just happens to be the one clipping which specifically does not mention that Michael did not personally attend the art auction at his parents’ house? Hmm. You decide.
Perhaps Montagu did have some passing acquaintance with the Jackson family. Maybe not. However, it seems apparent that his personal acquaintance with Michael Jackson began and ended with Diana’s 1997 memorial, those few hours spent afterwards at the hotel, and the MLK day visit to Neverland (not counting the New Year’s Eve visit, in which Michael wasn’t even there and both Montagu and Alex slept in a guest house). Even in Montagu’s own attempts to defend his repuation, he has not been able to produce any photos of himself and Michael Jackson together, other than this photo taken at Princess Diana’s Los Angeles memorial (which, again, proves nothing other than that, yes, as we already know, they attended that service together):
You would think that someone who had been intimate friends with Michael Jackson for many years-especially someone as apparently thrilled with name dropping and rubbing elbows with celebs as this guy!-would have certainly made sure to have many, many photo ops of himself and his friend to show the world! Well, I’ll just say that if and when any such photo surfaces, perhaps I will reassess my opinions expressed here. Until then, I highly doubt it.
In the meantime, if you care to be entertained by reading more of his delusional rantings, here are some interesting pages to check out. Clearly, The Duke hasn’t changed much since his failed attempt to bring another molesation claim against Michael Jackson! He has simply switched targets.
And perhaps, given everything else that we have discussed here concerning Montagu’s fabricated story, should it come as any surprise that he has been mentioned in cahoots with another notorious MJ liar/fabricator? Check out this passage from a recent article on Scott Thorson’s lies that was posted on Vindicating Michael:
Scott, who claims he had sex with Jackson again for the final time a day later at Lord Montague’s house in the outskirts of London, says he visited the singer on two occasions years later at a hotel where he alleges Jackson was in possession of what looked like gay porn magazines featuring young boys.
Boy, talk about that old saying, “Birds of a feather flock together.” One has to ask, why was none of this even mentioned in Montagu’s court declaration, which in 2005 would have been well after the fact? Certainly possessing intimate knowledge of Michael having a gay affair under his own roof would have, if nothing else, lent important credibility to the prosecution’s case! But perhaps what is most revealing about this information is that, obviously, Thorson and Montagu must be pretty good buds if Thorson is even allowed access to Montagu’s house in order to meet with his lovers! (Or was this, too, just another of Thorson’s lies! Heck, with so many of these psychopathic and pathological liars running rampant, it makes it hard to keep up with whose lies are canceling out whose!).
Bullies Prey On The Weak. Michael Wasn’t Weak, But His Innate Goodness-That Same Quality We Loved So Much-Also Drew Psychopathic and Sociopathic Personalities To Him Like A Magnet
In closing, what lessons can we learn from the fabrications of Alexander Montagu and other so-called “phantom” accusers of Michael Jackson? The reason it is so vitally important to shed light on these cases is because, whether we like it or not, once these stories have been made public (regardless of how truthful) they are “out there,” no doubt to be picked up by present and future doubters, haters, cynics, or even just curious but neutral researchers who happen to stumble across them. Alexander Montagu’s “story” and the details of his 2005 declaration-for better or worse-are out there to further muddy the waters and cloud the minds of everyone who is already prone to believe the worst about Michael Jackson. The sheer number of such stories is what gives credence to those who stubbornly insist on the adage, “Where there’s smoke, there must be fire.” If one person can have THIS many stories circulating about his suspicious behavior with young boys, doesn’t it stand to reason that there must, then, be some truth to the stories? At least some of them?
There was a time when I would have been the first to say “yes.” By nature, we are creatures of deductive reasoning. If enough evidence of wrongdoing “seems” to be there, then the obvious and intelligent conclusion is that wrongdoing must have occurred. Seems reasonable until we realize the unique circumstances of celebrity cases and, especially, a case in which a multi-million dollar settlement has been paid out. In Michael Jackson’s case, not only did the Chandler settlement set him up in a tragic way as a person who would forever be targeted by would-be, get-rich-quick schemers, but also as someone for whom anyone he slighted could then play that card to their advantage, whether it be through a hoped-for financial windfall directly from Michael himself, or the opportunity to sell a story to the tabloids, or even sometimes to simply get Michael’s attention by holding the “threat” of yet another allegation over his head! Whether their motives were financial gain or simply to get attention or to play a bluff, the end result was the same-Michael’s name paid the price.
Not to mention, his emotional and physical health and peace of mind. To go back to Ms. Pillsbury-Foster’s quote which so aptly kicks off her article, “everyone is at risk from those without conscience.” But Michael Jackson, it seemed, was more at risk than most of us, due to his unique combination of wealth and global fame, combined with what became a particularly and uniquely vicious media lynching, coupled with Michael’s own sensitive vulnerability that made him both desirous to help anyone in need (especially children) and, at the same time, somewhat gullible and naive to those with malicious intent. I don’t buy-and never have-that he was an innocent lamb or a naive simpleton. He was neither. But he did have a softness and a vulnerable, all-too-trusting nature that made him an easy target for manipulative psychopaths like Evan Chandler and Alexander Montagu. It was easy to get him to crumble under duress-a weakness that Evan Chandler played on, and for which Montagu, I have no doubt, would have liked to have played had he been given the slightest encouragement that his story would have held water.
What seems particularly interesting about these stories is just how often the alleged “victims”-the children themselves-seem to get completely ignored in the manipulative and/or sociopathic parents’ or adults’ attempt to make it all about “me and Michael.” Yet shouldn’t their word and, most importantly, their concern be at the central issue of these stories? As has already been stated, Alex Montagu, Jr has not only repeatedly denied his father’s story, but has continued to insist only that his very brief time spent in Michael Jackson’s company was one of the brightest spots of his young life. This is the reason why Alex has personally chosen to narrate the home videos of himself and Michael Jackson, both that day when they played hide and seek at the hotel, and his visit to Neverland in early 1998, and has chosen to title the videos “Moments of Happiness, My Time Spent With Michael Jackson.” According to him, they were just that-brief moments of happiness in an otherwise troubled childhood (and does this, likewise, not sound very familiar to Jordan Chandler, whom I suspect-whether he willingly admits it now or not-also saw his friendship with Michael as a temporay oasis in an otherwise torturous childhood?). Alex is working very hard, so I was told, to get the videos out there so that the public can know the man he knew-or at least, the man he knew all too briefly.
I have not seen the videos personally, as they are the property of Alex and Wendy Montagu. However, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster HAS seen them, and I couldn’t help but note the glowing lilt in her voice as she described how sweet, funny, and charming they are to watch.
“Michael was so skinny that he could hide his whole body behind a piece of furniture and just disappear,” she laughed. Young Alex must have indeed been tripping as his five-year-old mind wondered, “How in the world can he just make himself disappear like that?”
Click here to see a photo of Alex Montagu, Jr. today:
I sincerely hope that one day soon we will be privileged to see those videos. But even if that never comes to pass, that is not really what’s important here. Those are, after all, private memories. What is important is that Michael managed to sincerely touch this young man’s life. What’s more, it is a reminder that beautiful things can nevertheless come out of even the most ugly and sordid circumstances.
UPDATE: The video footage, as it turns out, had already been leaked over a year ago (see comments below). Since the footage has already been made available on Youtube, I will go ahead and post it here for those who wish to see it.
|
I believe it’s because the Thornson story involved his father not him.
Well, I will allow the correction to stand here for now because I really cannot go back in at this time and add or delete anything else from this post. I have been doing that all evening, and every time I go back in to make an edit it completely messes the format up! Articles that feature excessive multiple links, in addition to multi-media, seem to be especially problematic when I have to do too many edits. I have finally said enough is enough for now, lol. Any further additions or corrections will have to be made here in the comments section.
Speaking of which, it looks like the hyperlinks in Pillsbury-Foster’s article ARE working, after all. I didn’t think they would-sometimes with cut and pasted articles, they do not- which is why I included the actual links. But I am leaving everything as is for now, as I don’t want to risk screwing up the format yet again. At least not tonight, lol.
That is so disturbing on so many levels. I’m thinking that after Michael’s acquittal, there were probably a good many mentally disturbed people who likely would have threatened him and wanted him dead as well as his family and probably it continues today, although they don’t publicize it. I always have concerns for his children, as I believe these false allegations are always going to be shadowing his children, and you never know what deranged mind might decide to do. It seems if a story is in the media, in particular a well-known celebrity, it attracts unhealthy minds to attach themselves to the story in any way possible. Raven, I would imagine you have heard about the Diane Dimond piece she just wrote comparing Michael to Sandusky. She is so despicable, she makes my blood boil. He’s been gone 3 years and she will not let up. His children will constantly have to be confronted with this hate – I just find it so horrendous and upsetting. I truly think she wants to hurt his children – I really do. Why else is she doing this? Oh, I know she wants to get attention to the piece and she knows anything MJ will attract eyeballs. But really, at what cost. Besides continually assassinating Michael’s name, she has to know his children are going to read this stuff. She can’t possibly believe her own lies – I mean she’s not stupid – and anyone who followed the trial can see how Michael was set up by those scammers. She knows what she is doing and she wants to hurt as many people as possible and I really think she wants to particularly hurt Prince, Paris and Blanket. Would she say what she wrote to their faces? I don’t know – she may very well want to, so she does the next best thing.
One more thing, and I apologize for getting a little off your topic, if anything compares to Sandusky, it’s the Catholic priests – with multiple boys being molested and the Church knowing and covering it up. I am Catholic and I find it disgusting how they protected the priests and moved them from parish to parish, where the abuse continued. It is so obvious that Michael was 100% innocent and how he suffered because those lies. I know that Maureen Orth is Catholic and I always thought perhaps that was one reason why she went after Michael – a lot of projection on to Michael instead of the priests – I never saw her say or write anything at all about the priests. Diane Dimond is just a hateful, mean person and I don’t know what her faith is – she may be Catholic too. Whatever she is, she has no soul – to continuously go after a man who was proved innocent, who has been gone 3 years, and who has family and friends who are heartsick everytime she tries to re-write Michael’s history. There needs to be a law to protect the innocent deceased from this slander.
Raven, thank you for the continued positive energy you give us all with your enlightening posts.
You know I do agree with what you are saying regarding Dimond. I think she does feed off the attention we give her, but I sort of had to vent as she is so vile and she absolutely refuses to engage in a civilized conversation where Michael is concerned. She blocks anyone who provides evidence of Michael’s innocence, which just proves what her intentions are. I am concerned for Michael’s children constantly having to hear these lies and also people thinking that she is an “MJ expert”. I am going to try harder to ignore her as she is definitely not worth it – I just wish she would give it up – she is toxic.
Raven, again I am sorry for this, you do such terrific work, thank you!
Its good for people like Melinda Pilsbury who have inside information and whatever her motives, bring it in the open. Wish she had done so when Michael was alive .
I will read the article again.I have some questions that may have been answered in the article that I missed.
I always wondered what the footage of the hide and seek game was about and immediately thought there was something forced about it and that Michael looked very uncomfortable. The woman sitting by the table watching Michael entertain her son while he had his own children to take care of. Like he was led into doing something he didnt want and they try to make it look sinister.
Knowing the story behind this footage its mindboggling how easy it was to get near Michael even for a diagnosed psychopath. Why werent people screened by his security after what happened in 1993.
Sometimes I get angry at Michael for being so trusting of people he slightly knew, even after the Chandler drama, making himself such an easy target.
I read somewhere that he could not handle confronting people and would rather go against his gut feelings. Especially when children were involved.
What hurts is that he was not welcome in London. Even if the story was fabricated, the fact that he didnt get an invitation for the funeral and had to ask for one while Elton John was invited to perform is quite sad.
Also disturbing is that many of Michaels detractors knew each other what imo makes the conspiracy theory not so far fetched.
So many questions go through my mind reading this umpteenth extortion attempt. What it shows is that Michael was not meant for this world. There was no way he could have survived the evil.
Quick question: Where did you happen to see this footage? I was under the impression it had not been released.
As stated, Wendy Montagu observed that Michael seemed to feel very uncomfortable, as if his personal space was being invaded. Of course, Michael seemed to enjoy making home movies; hence, all of the footage we got for Private Home Movies and the Cascio’s home movies, etc. But these were all people he had known a lot longer-and a lot more intimately-than the Montagus.