Just another WordPress site
“Stalking Michael Jackson-Psychopath In Action”: How Melinda Pillsbury-Foster’s Important Article Can Help Us To Better Understand The Craziness Of Michael Jackson’s Life-Literally!
“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.
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.
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.
In 2007, CNN even listed his “story” as among the “most intriguing details” that the jury never got to hear!
Diana’s cousin, the dukeBy 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!):
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.
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.
In the same recording Chandler dismisses all concern for his son.
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.”
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:
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!
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:
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):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theduchessofmanchester/6799047864/in/photostream (I am not posting these, as they are private photos that I do not have permission to use).
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!).
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.
23 Responses to ““Stalking Michael Jackson-Psychopath In Action”: How Melinda Pillsbury-Foster’s Important Article Can Help Us To Better Understand The Craziness Of Michael Jackson’s Life-Literally!”