Hello Everyone: As you know, we recently conducted an exclusive interview with Darren Julien who responded "on the record" to the controversy surrounding signed memorabilia recently sold at his "Tompkins & Bush" auction. We originally opened up a topic on our FaceBook Group for members to add their comments and reaction to the interview. But for a variety of reasons, we think it is more appropriate to move that discussion here to our Forum to give this topic a more permanent home. For those of you who wish to continue the discussion/commentary pertaining to this interview, we are opening this thread so that we can keep the topic “alive”, without cluttering up our FB Group (which we would like to keep more on topic with respect to pictures and info on MJ collectibles). I have copied and pasted all of the previous commentary regarding this from the FB Group to this thread (as below). So, please use this thread for all further discussion and/or news with regards to the Darren Julien interview and related topics. Thanks, Ron

Ben Scarr Darren Julien "Please see my response to the prior question". That answer was used a few too many times, and though I greatly appreciate Darren Julien taking the time to answer questions that concern us fans over the alleged fake autographs, I find his answers to most of the questions evasive. Another thing is a person's handwriting stops developing after the age of 21 (it mostly in my opinion will change again in old age), so Michael's autograph aged 13 would be expected to be different to his autograph at the age 24. But it's very unlikely Michael's autograph would change so drastically from the age of 24 to 50. Michael's autograph was always very impressive and fluid looking, these autographs sold by Julien's Auctions look very unimpressive, and tense looking. Not only that Michael's allege "To Bush, Love Michael Jackson", all look like they were signed around the same time. Would Michael really spend so much time signing autographs on almost every costume he gave to Michael Bush. I know Michael often gave costumes away, but I think he signed very few of his costumes. As the costumes alone were just as much an autograph by themselves.

Helen Schroeder One thing is true, there have been many more of these exact autographs sold in different auctions by Juliens since MJ's death, to an extent that's truly shocking. I have no doubt whatsoever, however, that these can all be traced to the same source. And that is NOT Michael J Jackson.
Helen Schroeder His statement about the standee is false (he claims the images are different on the auction standee and the Bravado one). It is very clearly the same photograph, the same shoes, the same licence plates in the background. If he stated falsehoods in this crucial instance, how much can we believe the rest of his story?
Helen Schroeder The questions were very searching and thorough - thank you, MJJ Collector's team. I am sad that there wasn't a question about the sheer NUMBER of autographs supposedly gifted to Bush, and when exactly they were supposed to be signed, because Julien was able to use the "signatures change over time" line unchallenged. It doesn't make any sense of course, because to his death Michael continued to sign his normal autograph.

Robyn Starkand MJ would be very sad at how some of his so called "fans" have treated Michael Bush.....after what Michael went through you think this fan community, out of every fan community, would have learned ... but unfortunately some have not learned anything...
Its very sad and disappointing to me. I hope those that have persecuted Juliens and Michael Lee Bush will see the scope of what they have done and learn a life's lesson...unfortunately they have broken hearts in doing so.....

Helen Schroeder Robyn, Juliens was able to answer his questions in writing, without the possibility of comeback questions, so he could pick and choose and deflect as he chose. His answers are riddled with inaccuracies and deflection. What any criticism of MLB, who made millions from these sales, has to do with being a fan of Michael Jackson beats me.

Robyn Starkand Helen believe who you want.... these so called authenticators?? whom do not have the greatest reputation if you google them or Michael Bush and Juliens..... I chose the people who I know and have met....I am done with this nonsense......

Helen Schroeder I have met Michael himself. My loyalty is to him, and no one else. 'Nuff said. And I don't need authenticators to see that these autographs are fake. They simply don't resemble MJ's autograph, of any time period, ever.
Helen Schroeder I'm sorry if I come across aggressive, Robyn, it's not personal. I'm just truly outraged and incredulous at the audacity of this scam. And no, Bush wouldn't have been able to sell his ironing board, cuddly toys, room service menus, unrelated records or an empty can of stain remover for thousands of dollars if there hadn't been "autographs" scribbled on them.

Ivy Mjjc I have to say that I'm not buying the "different shoes and different license plates" argument. Regardless of who (official or bootleg) produced what (standee or poster) it's the reproduction of the same photograph, the shoes and the background license plates should not change. Size difference - if true - might mean a different item but it would be impossible to confirm or deny. Nevertheless cancellation of the sale of the standee is good. If similar signature items in the previous auctions are consigned by people other than Michael Bush, that could help with the argument that the signatures are real and raise doubts about the claims that Bush forged the signatures. But again given that the consignors are confidential as well, that would be impossible to confirm or deny too.

Robyn Starkand I give up.... and I am done!!!!!

Helen Schroeder What I don't understand in this discussion of COLLECTORS is that people trade arguments and logic but don't look at the autographs themselves. That's what it comes down to: the evidence of our own eyes. We are collectors. We have seen hundreds of MJ autographs. How anyone can look at that signature and take it for a real MJ autograph is just baffling to me.
Helen Schroeder I also don't understand why people try to badmouth the autograph experts who agree with the fans who don't believe the autographs are real, and who have no stakes in the discussion at all. Yet they fail to see that the people denying it have millions of dollars and their reputations at stake - who has more incentive to lie?

Laura Panunzio Helen Schroeder everybody can decide whether to believe or not and nobody here has the Gospel in hands or the magic ball to ascertain all truths in the world. If you search on google those people who call themselves authenticators are named as not reliable sources at all, so it's not badmouthing but reality. If it's true that guy who owns the PSA agency to authenticate autographs, is considered a reliable source or a so famous expert, I'd laugh aloud a lot, as I saw personally so many forgeries coming out with certificates from that agency and sold by scammers like Makris who sold items with those 'COA' and another scammer from Portugal who scammed many members here too. END OF THE STORY and believe what you want to, but please don't put this issue at an endless time with 1000000000 comments, as we did our job, now it's over and we want to take care of other items and joyful things.

Robyn Starkand Helen have you checked these so called autograph experts credentials?? That will open your eyes!!!! again I am done on this issue... I believe Michael Bush's heart and sincerity along with Juliens...

Johannes De Prins i think the truth is somewhere in the middle like in every story

Ivy Mjjc Helen Schroeder It's not really correct to say that the autograph experts have "no stakes" in this issue. They do. there happens to be a tangled web in autograph /auction business and past events and future revenues can be a very good motive in siding with or against Juliens. Plus I'm personally really interested why these experts websites in red bold letters say that the only way to TRULY examine an autograph is through physical examination yet some people act like their quick opinion based on photographs are gospel.

Helen Schroeder Laura, you're right. Sorry, I promise I won't continue with the many comments - this will be my last for now. And I appreciate and thank you for the work the MJJC team have done in asking these very thorough questions. In the end you're right. It's everybody's own decision whether to trust their own eyes or believe the story of people who have millions at stake. I repeat, I do not need authenticators to tell me those signatures don't match any known MJ autograph, ever. Ivy Mjjc, the exact same strange autograph has appeared on paper, card, fabric, metal, leather etc.etc. very consistently. To look at them in person might clinch the deal if there was any doubt. But the autographs are so glaringly different from MJ's that that's really not necessary.


Ron Sweet Hi Helen: In reply to this "I am sad that there wasn't a question about the sheer NUMBER of autographs supposedly gifted to Bush, and when exactly they were supposed to be signed, because Julien was able to use the "signatures change over time" line unchallenged. It doesn't make any sense of course, because to his death Michael continued to sign his normal autograph." actually, we did ask questions along these lines, but they were not answered (Julien did not comment because he said the origin of the line of questioning was not from a statement made by Julien's Auctions). These were the questions: MJJC: Has Michael Bush offered any evidence to support his claim, and at least prove that MJ even visited his house in 2009, when many of these auction items were supposedly signed? If so, what are the approximate dates that this took place (according to Bush)? Is it your present contention that these items were largely signed over a period of several years, or that most of them were signed during these “recovery periods” at Bush’s house sometime in 2009?
MJJC: In your 2010 Music Icons auction, you sold a Michael Jackson autograph dated June 24th, 2009, during a time period we now know Michael Jackson was taking heavy medication (including what we now know was Propofol). This autograph, however, still looks very similar to what we have come to accept as an authentic Michael Jackson signature, which would seem to refute the theory that his signature was significantly different when he was heavily medicated. Given these facts, in your professional opinion, why does this autograph (from June 24th, 2009) look very similar to other commonly accepted Michael Jackson autographs, but nothing at all like many of those autographed items recently sold at your auction from Michael Bush’s collection? If the unusual style of the autographs from the T&B auction cannot be reasonably explained through the “he was heavily medicated at the time” argument, what other possible explanation could you offer for this in your expert opinion?

Helen Schroeder Thank you, Ron. You guys really didn't pull any punches and your line of questioning makes sense. It's frustrating Julien could wiggle out of answering crucial questions by flat out denying things several people independently say he told them. (Laura - I'll only speak when spoken to, promise ).

Robyn Starkand Thank you Ron & Laura for your efforts...people will stir up trouble and believe what they want... I know in my heart for me what is the truth,,,Thank you again for trying to put this to rest

Richard Lecocq Thank you everyone at MJJ Collectors website and forum for this interview. Now, everyone has its opinion, I am glad I've boycotted all things JA since 2009.

Jon Cooper A very interesting read and it certainly allows each of us to form our own opinions based on information that was not previously in the public domain. Whether the autographs are real or not - we may never know. One thing we do know however is that Laura and Ron (apologies if I missed anyone) did an awesome job trying to get answers on our behalf and for that I am truly appreciative.

Richard Lecocq wishing all this was settled out in court someday. anyway...

Justin Carl Jon Cooper.. we DO know that they are not real.
Justin Carl Thank you RON SWEET.. you have done a super job.

Laura Panunzio And thank you to me too as I stood this drama for 2 months, with 2000 emails, readings, links etc.. and now I'm very exhausted. Just turn pages now and move on as after Michael's death nothing is and will be the same again. So just accept this once and for all as every fight is against windmills and it will create more endless pain. Just remember Michael for what he left us and the lessons of Love he gave us, the rest is 0.

Don Barcardi and yes u too Laura & Ron as this was not easy. Frankly, I'm shocked at some of the informational responses and bewildered by the sources of the information. Just my twopence; For the record Cyrkin was a founder and major stockholder. That no longer exists. Roger Epperson was a music authenticator for PSA/DNA. PSA/DNA QO is notoriously inaccurate. The many stories on ROR are also notoriously false in many aspects and the results of bad blood and feuds that would equal the mccoy/hatfields. Roger has misfired on some Jacksons and that is well documented. However, he is also wildely considered knoweldegable in the field of music opinions nonetheless. It's unfortunate that the others cited in juliens responses as well as the countradiction with the KNBC report on Ms. Wooley's role was not fully devulged. While there is merit perhaps in clearing the air on several items and some will have to choose which side they believe, or not. The response of "Most of these statements are created by others in an attempt to cause confusion and to spread falsehoods. These statements did not come from Julien’s Auctions" can be met with one word; Bull. You are right Laura as "nothing" will be the same again. (this post is the property & copyright of Don Barcardi and not authorized for copying or reposting anywhere else in part or in full without expressed permission by Don Barcardi, thier attornies, or authorized representatives)

Helen Schroeder Don Barcardi, for the record, you were one of the people Julien told the "MJ on drugs signed these" story which he now denies, am I correct?

Don Barcardi Helen Schroeder in a court of law, emails are oftentimes inadmissable as evidence just as text messages as one can never be completely sure of exactly who the sender was. Key operative words, "Coming from Juliens Auctions" could indeed be legally correct. But we'll stick with "bull" for the record. (this post is the property & copyright of Don Barcardi and not authorized for copying or reposting anywhere else in part or in full without expressed permission by Don Barcardi, thier attornies, or authorized representatives)

Helen Schroeder Wow, you even have it in writing. Thanks. Don't worry about me quoting you against your will. I'd just like for people here to see that Julien did not answer truthfully to many of the questions put to him. While it was important to ask the questions, the matter cannot rest there when the answers are untrue. The most important is of course still the standee. Apart from the fact that Julien's statement is factually wrong, which is easy to prove from the pictures of both items: A signed "bootleg" of something that wasn't even contracted to be produced until after MJ's death is no less impossible than an original product.

Richard Lecocq the bigger a lie can be the more some people are eager to believe it...

Billie Jean Who cares about authenticators? The facts are the standee was signed by the same person who signed all the other items in this bogus auction. The standee came out AFTER Michael Jackson passed away and the psychic bootlegger knew in advance of Michael's passing in 2009 and of the Bravado-Triumph International deal with the Estate and that they would use #96 as the ID for the LA Gear Standee. This is a scam that targeted Michael's FANS - that is what Michael would be sick about.

Cathy Anderson a very interesting interview...thanks to MJJ collectors for doing an amazing job. I have learned every thing I need to know from this interview and the discussions prior and post interview. I so appreciate that we can all pool together to find truth.

Don Barcardi helen schroeder - that would be the least of the concerns although I see you've edited your original post. Is it Collector's Universe or PSA, PSA/DNA the "subdivisions" - the former is the parent company that is founded and issues stock. Don't be sidetracked by the plethora of minor issues as the only issue that really matters are the signatures authentic or not. Bush claims (or did he) that they are. Opinions are just that - sometimes accurate, sometimes inconclusive, sometimes not. In this day and age placing complete trust in a consignor is foolhardy especially unvetted. So unitl it's "conclusive" one way or another "interested parties" will choose which side they want to agree with.

Helen Schroeder I agree, Don Barcardi, but the standee is no minor matter, if you mean that. It was produced after MJJ's death, this can be proven. Julien tried to deflect and muddy the issue, but the simple fact is Michael Jackson could not have signed it, it did not exist when he died. The signature on it is exactly the same weird style as the others we dispute, so this one items throws the entire lot. It's the one thing Julien should have had a rock solid explanation for, and he completely blew it. We have detailed pictures of both items - they are made from the same photo with the same production information. Forgive me, but I really am not interested in authentication companies unless I see a signature I'm unsure about and need an expert opinion on. This isn't one of them. It doesn't even remotely resemble an authentic signature, my own eyes tell me that. The authenticators did not start this discussion, fans did. It's also untrue that we didn't raise the problem with Julien. We tried for weeks but were blocked on FB and our comments deleted.

Don Barcardi Helen Schroeder no, was addressing the orignal post. the "standee" is an interesting debate especially where a "bootlegged" argument has been surfaced. The myriad of surrounding issues even though plausible would need to be factually examined and presented that contradict, conclusively if possible, the statement. There would be many questions that would need to be answered and unfortunately some who might just have valuable insight may not answer them and thus the controversy continues. Just Like Area 51 or was Oswald the only shooter even though the Warren Commission claims he was many still don't believe it. The ones that I feel bad for are those buyers who are getting caught in the crossfire from all of this or who have had their EBAY listings removed and believe it was soley EBAY who was responsible for the action.
Don Barcardi I see you have expanded upon your post. that is why there needs to be middle of the road and voices of reason. Ron & Laura both played that role as well. Because someone doesn't jump on the bandwagon one way or another doesn't mean they ought to be villified as a result which has happened from what I've read. When one simply attacks the wagon train the 1st thing done - circle the wagons to fend off the attackers. There is quite a controversy regarding "expert opinions" when it comes to autographs and the surrounding hype. Darren is entitled to his firm belief of his consignor. It is not something I recommend but I am not Darren either.

Helen Schroeder Don Barcardi Ah, thanks for clarifying. I hope I'm not vilifying anyone, all I'm interested in is the truth. I'm all for keeping the discussion factual and reasonable and MJJC have done a sterling job. I've been open minded about Julien, Bush, everything except the appearance of the autographs. I've asked polite, detailed questions and unfortunately the crucial points have not been answered, or answered with insults to my intelligence. I would post the photographs in question so everyone can see that Julien was incorrect about the standee, but I know Laura would not thank me for it :-). I am all for people making up their own mind. But if you make up your mind based on false information that I can PROVE is false, it's frustrating. Understandable, no?
Michael's Wendy Hi Laura and Ron, I wanted to take the time to thank you! You took our questions to their extent... and IMO the answers spoke volumes. :-) With that said, I know you do not want your FB page turned into a debate on the interview... if you want, contact me privately and I will give the address of where the interview is being debated, and you can post it if you like. I know you don't like ppl just posting "links" w/o asking. Anyone who is "for" the signatures, are very much welcome to join the conversations. It would be nice to hear all sides.

Laura Panunzio Hi Michael's Wendy , you're welcome. You can open a thread on our Site's Forum www.mjjcollectors.com if you want so no debates here.
Michael Jackson Collectors www.mjjcollectors.com

Julia Thomas Michaels true fans know his signature. Without a doubt those signatures are fake. To say MJ was drugged up when he signed them, is low of Mr. Bush. Michaels so called friend. They were just sooo greedy , they signed that "standee" by mistake forgetting it wasn't available when MJ was alive . Busted!!!!

Michael's Wendy I sent you a PM Laura if you could take a look. Thanks! :-)

Justin Carl yes his answers speak volumes.. the standee was a bootleg !!

Robyn Starkand the Standee might be a bootleg.. but the signature is authentic..as are all the others. There is no science in looking at autographs for a definitive yes or no. It is all based on human opinion, therefore you need to consider the source. I have done the research and will only say this MLB has no reason to forge anything, as he has a plethora of MJ things unsigned as well, nor would Juliens compromise their reputation, by selling forged signatures.The other so called experts have not proved to be reliable based on their reputations I have read.

Helen Schroeder Robyn Starkand, it may be possible to have different opinions about autograph authenticity. But whether or not two photographs are the same is NOT a matter of opinion. Julien has tried to bring that "bootleg" idea into the discussion to confuse people. Yet every detail he mentions to support that it's a bootleg is MANIFESTLY UNTRUE because the standees in question ARE of the same photo. I have compared the images inch by inch. No different background. No different shoes. The production info is legible on the Julien auction catalogue photo and it matches the Bravado stand down to the product #. The company who made them are on record stating this was not produced until after MJJ's death. So it's IRRELEVANT to the discussion whether it's a bootleg or not: the signature can only be post mortem. Also, this is the second time Julien has tried to confuse people by claiming the standee is what it's not. A while back he tried to make out it was a "poster". But he got called on that even before the questions were sent, so now he has come up with a different story. How many times can somebody flip-flop on their story until they lose credibility? Julien has not answered a single one of the crucial questions: when the autographs were supposed to have been signed, how that standee can be possible, and why the signature differs so wildly from any known MJ signature before. He has not shown how they verified the signatures in the first place, citing his appraiser Laura Wooley as the authenticator. But she is on record stating that she is NOT an autograph expert, and says that PSA/DNA, who consider the autographs fake, are "reputable" and do "great work" (see NBC investigation). Sorry Laura.

Robyn Starkand You can all think what you like...but there are real people being hurt by all of this when there is no reason for it. Michael Bush has been more than gracious to the fans...and was one of michale's friends till and after the end. I will NOT even entertain the fact that he forged signatures, as he has no reason to do so.... Ok I am done (heart)

Laura Panunzio No Helen Schroeder now I don't accept any more sorries. One more message on this and I'll delete the full thread.
Laura Panunzio This is becoming a farse now and I'm tired.

Ron Sweet Hello: I hate to take sides, because I was hoping that the interview would simply speak for itself. But Helen (and Billie Jean with the funny but true “psychic bootlegger” comment) are spot on. Richard, you mentioned that wouldn’t it be great if there was a court case that would help us get to the bottom of this. Well, the fact is, we already HAVE a court case (with sworn testimony) to refer to, and that is Felix Sebacious’ statement from the case files against “HTWF”. And, if you carefully read our line of questioning pertaining to the LA Gear standee (including the extensive references to that testimony as well as the mention of the Triumph International licensing), that IS the case right there. Because as you know, AEG/Bravado did not have the rights to produce material other than that pertaining to the This Is It concerts until August 21st, 2009 (and this would include the LA Gear licensing). That is inarguable and it is not in dispute by anyone (and in fact, no one else has shown any evidence at all to the contrary). Therefore, no “bootlegs” or “counterfeits” or “prototypes” could have existed BEFORE that point. And there is no debate at all on that point. So, anyone can take sides as to the “authenticity” of any particular autograph(s) that were sold at that auction (that can be debated endlessly, as we have seen). But until someone explains how this “bootlegged” standee could have been signed by Michael Jackson more than two months after his passing, everything else is just noise. To use the court analogy, the standee is the “smoking gun” that draws into question all the other similar autographs that were sold at this auction. A court case certainly could shed light on WHO signed this standee, WHEN, and WHY (or more importantly, who directed them to do so). But clearly, that person was not Michael Jackson.

Ron Sweet Laura, I understand you are tired of all this as we BOTH are. But this thread was opened so people could comment on the Julien interview. As long as the discussion is free of personal attacks against other members, I think we should allow them to comment (just my opinion). After a few days, we will in fact remove this thread (or at least "unpin it") because it will become too redundant and God knows we all need to move on with our lives!!

Pez Greaves Ron Sweet I almost posted something similar. if this stand was released BEFORE Bravado made them and 'signed' by Michael, wouldn't that make Bravado's stand the bootleg?! How can someone produce a bootleg of something that has yet to be made. Furthermore, why would someone make a bootleg and put Bravado's logos on it, then Bravado copy THAT lol.
I'm not taking sides on any of this situation, but that Standee does not make sense to me.

Ron Sweet Pez Greaves, in fact (and as I told Darren Julien yesterday when I thanked him for doing the interview), the suggestion the standee is a "bootleg" only raises more questions than it answers (and you mention just a couple). As Billie Jean says, the bootlegger would have to be "psychic". But not only that, if there were other similar bootlegs circulating around June25th (and earlier) why didn't we see them? How come the "other" standees (MJ sitting on car) also bootlegged? How did this particular "bootleg" find its way to Michael Jackson, and why and when and how did he give it to Michael Bush? I could go on and on (and on). But suffice it to say that the timeline doesn't add up at all.

Helen Schroeder Thank you, Ron Sweet, I really appreciate it. Laura Panunzio, I really do understand that you must be dog tired of this because you of course get much of the brunt of it all. But please understand that this isn't about point scoring or vilifying anyone or stirring up trouble. I'm looking for the truth *in the interest of fans and collectors* who have potentially been cheated out of literally millions of dollars. And trying to protect Michael's legacy. Just assume for a moment that all of those odd signatures are indeed fake: just think what would happen if they got away with it. This signature is on the way to becoming "canonised" as authentic MJ, and the fraud will just go on and on, and in the end nobody will be able to tell a fake from a real MJ anymore.

Julia Thomas Whose site is this?

Ivy Mjjc Some of you might know that I treated prototypes as a possibility. There were multiple reasons for this 1) Bravado CEO's LA Times interview in which he mentioned taking prototypes to Michael on June 4 2009, 2) Latoya Jackson's statement on Celebrity Apprentice showing a signed prototype tshirt, 3) Sebacious statement that the deal also included a general MJ Store and 4) Karen Langford statement in HTWF case that MJ had other merchandise deals involving MJ Licensing and MJ Entertainment (that might have somewhat explained the involvement of Triumph). Plus the reality is that the all business deals are sealed and no one knows for sure which deal included which items. I gave the benefit of the However as I mentioned yesterday, I'm having issues with the bootleg claim. As Ron pointed out it is a lot more problematic. Are there bootleg standees? Well I saw a standee today which was different than the official standees but like I said it was a different standee with no logo / copyright info on it. So an almost exact copy (life size standee logo on the top right is different) but with the same item number, copyright info before it was officially produced / sold and signed is really pushing it. But perhaps that small difference could be a reasonable doubt.
If we are to approach this legally, you have to admit that the "bootleg" claim is a really nice way for Juliens to leave this issue at limbo. Bravado and/or the actual manufacturer for the standee are parties that can definitely and specifically state whether or not there were any standee prototypes. So saying "this is a bootleg" protects them from the threat from Bravado specifically saying "no standee prototype".
I'm not gonna act like an autograph/ writing expert and I'm not gonna start making criminal accusations against anyone but I'll say that this standee issue is still highly problematic and still a serious question.

Ron Sweet Ivy, those facts may be true, but it still doesn't change the issue that Bravado did not have the license to LA Gear, Moonwalker, and all other licenses/designs NOT pertaining to the This Is It concerts until August 21st, 2009. That is the key date in the timeline here. No one is disputing this fact, and no one yet has provided any evidence to the contrary.

Ivy Mjjc Ron Sweet Not to nitpick but they did have Thriller items, a handbag and a varsity jacket which were in the works before Michael's death and sold soon after. They also had a Thriller 25 T shirt line as well as a Dangerous sleep mask and a Bad Trucker hat etc. In USA they were sold at Hot Topic stores starting mid July 2009. They said it was all done and ready to be sold before his death. Without seeing the contracts can you be absolutely sure that the deal didn't include other items ? I prefer to err on the side of caution. Anyway none of this is relevant to the "bootleg" standee.

Michael's Wendy For all of those who are in defense of Juliens and not for the authenticators. MJFC also had the same type of interview yest. Darren states in that interview that not once was he notified by any of the authenticators before the auction. Steve Cyrkin immed posted the emails from him to Darren (notifying DJ he thought there were forgeries and very nicely stated-they were freinds) and Darren back to Steve and Steve back to Darren and Darren back to Steve and the last email is Darren telling Steve "I have great respect for you Steve". This took place Nov 16, the auction was Dec. 3rd-don't take my word for it, find the other interview and look at the emails... it may not be from this interview but I think it should be mentioned & brought up, so people can weigh out who's b.s.ing

Lisa Mt Bootleggers would not have to wait for acquiring the design of the standee in 2009. It already existed since the 90s, just with the L.A. Gear branding. To think, it was planned to market the standee again at the same time with all the TII merchandise, makes no sense to me. And anyone knowing in advance about the specific ID #96 to be used for a bootleg raises the most ????

Helen Schroeder Oh, interesting, Ivy Mjjc. Thank you. I will delete my comment. Earlier you mention LaToya's comment on Celebrity BB about the signed pre-print. The print on the shirt is grey and white. Was it ever released in colour? My point is, it looks like a prototype print to me, i.e. not in the final colours. A prototype standee would probably be much lower quality than the final product. STILL, like you point out, Julien did not even use the "prototype" argument, he instead tried to distance the item from Bravado, giving us an even more problematic version instead.
Michael's Wendy its not possible for a bootlegger to know that bravado and triumph were going to team up together again to make the product until after MJ died. Bravado was merchandising the things for TII but not Triumph in conjunction.

Julia Thomas Thanks

Ivy Mjjc Helen Schroeder I agree bootleg argument is more problematic and I have issues with it. Another reason I gave prototype or early sample argument the benefit of the doubt was Bravado MJ store was open July 10, Hot Topic had these items on their shelves by July 11. That's only 15 days after Michael's death. Before Michael died Bravado was saying that they would open the online store one week before the concerts. Given the mass production + distribution time requirements it seems possible that some of these merchandise was in production or ready before Michael's death.

Helen Schroeder Well, Ivy Mjjc, not the standee. Both Advantage (the printing company) and Bravado have looked at the photograph and stated that the item in the Julien's catalogue was produced after MJ's death. If there had been an earlier print run they would have qualified their answer.

Billie Jean The Bravado store was with AEG and not Triumph. That merchandise was supposed to be ready the week of the concert start in July 2009.

Richard Lecocq well, some people here talk without any knowledge (again) : canyon crest ad ecbizz were deals made in japan without license and they abusively used former logos etc... what happened in Japan is different story to what happend when MJ signed this stupid deal with AEG (and thus the exclusive AEG / Bravado deal that was later renegocoated as the Triumph / Bravado deal).

Ivy Mjjc Did I made any claims about standee? Nope. All I tried to say it was PROBABLE that some merchandise could be produced prior to Michael's death. I'm not comfortable with acting like I have all the answers and know everything when the reality is we simply don't. And as I said I prefer to err on the side on the caution. That's my style. And if you want to get technical although Triumph Inc was suspended Triumph LLC was active. Also legally I don't see how AEG can license anything related to Michael when they had no rights on Michael's name, image, likeliness whatsoever. Even more simply put the signature on many TII items is a trademark of Michael. So in my opinion it would still require a business entity of Michael to be involved. If not Triumph , MJ Licensing or MJ Net Entertainment seems to be possible parties. Again we don't know it for sure because yes business deals are sealed.
That said I don't understand Richard Lecocq 's need to belittle me when I DO agree with you that the bootleg standee issue is problematic. So why are you fighting me? If I made a mistake you can correct it without having the need to take veiled jabs. But whatever rocks your boat.

Helen Schroeder Thanks, Ivy Mjjc, I agree the truth is best served by keeping it civil all round. Re. your point, the standee is the only thing of concern to us, so unless I'm missing something it's not really relevant if any other merchandise was or wasn't produced before MJ's death. Info on the standee is unequivocal: it's post mortem.

Richard Lecocq I don't fight you. Really, re-read my post. You seem to find a solution so that the idea that it is Michael's siggy on this posthumous standee is real. Signing a standee like this one or signing the 2010, 2011 or 2012 calendar or even a BAD 25 CD is the same to me. Fake. Now if Julien wants to also insult Bravado hinting that the standee is their problem, well that will not damage their reputation. But at the end of the day it just damages Michael's image.

Ivy Mjjc Helen Schroeder "Info on the standee is unequivocal." which Darren Julien rebutted as their standee is not a prototype but a bootleg. So that unequivocal information from Bravado /Advanced Graphics became irrelevant unless you can prove that there was no bootleg. Or as you found and pointed out does the difference on the "lifesize standee" on the top right corner provides enough reasonable doubt that the items are different?
Ivy Mjjc Richard Lecocq for two days I'm writing my issues with the "bootleg standee" argument. I explained myself in regards to why I gave the benefit of the doubt to the probable prototype as well as why I have issues with the bootleg claim. So perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.How can I be finding a solution for the signature when I'm saying I don't buy the most recent standee argument? Think about it. Also I have to add that I'm surprised that some of you have such a low opinion in regards to Michael's image and legacy or think that it can be so easily damaged. Do you really think that fake signatures can in any way effect Michael's legacy? I don't. Michael's legacy is established by his decades of work and NOT by merchandise or an autographed picture. Fake autographs has no effect on his image or his legacy. It'll be all about the image and reputation of Bush and Juliens and a financial problem for the buyers. Collectors will need to be a lot more careful.

Richard Lecocq well, I think slumping sales hint at this. We didn't need any controversy in his art and all he did as an artist. Now its is done, and it hurts. From that point, and IMHO, yes it cause harm to the legacy.
Richard Lecocq and collectors of any celebrity should not be exposed to such sad situations.

Michael's Wendy Also people should know that prior to the auction, Steve Cyrkin offered to stop by Darren and bring exemplars to him--no charge, and to discuss what he was seeing--forged items; and Mike Frost also wrote to Darren (pre auction) and offered his authenticating services on these items for FREE, because he saw the same thing. Both of these guys wanted to protect Darren. They were all friends. And even after the auction, Steve repeats himself many times stating on his autograph magazine live site that he doesn't believe for a minute that DJ would knowingly sell a forged item. He no longer believes that -since Darren has flipped a switch on these guys and is caught lying left and right about them. But the standee....I mean cmon, its a standee, then its a poster and the info was wrong in the catalog, and now its back to a standee but its bootlegged, and in all honesty I wouldn't doubt if its morphed again into shredded cardboard or kindling. We were praying the person who won that item actually got it... so it could be used as evidence. Nobody wants anyone to actually be found breaking laws (we really don't) --but if they did, they need to be brought to justice. And I do believe this makes a huge impact on Michael, his signature will be said for years to come to be one that wasn't even his. I commented on my twitter one day and said I sure hope nobody gets a tattoo of this new signature!! Everyone should also know that anyone now writing to return their item (DJ went on nat'l tv telling everyone if anyone questioned the authenticity of their item they would take it back) - those folks are now getting form letters "assuring them" its real, with no offer to allow them to return it. They claim what he said on t.v. was a "mistake". I just don't know how many things can be retracted by DJ before people really see what's happening here.

Billie Jean Listen to a podcast by Laura Woolley. She is Julien's supposed authenticator and expert of all MJ items (per Darren Julien). In the podcast interview which is over 1 hour long, she talks about how she is an archivist and appraiser, NOT an authenticator of autographs and that she does not trust the consignors, that it is up to the auction house to accept items or not, she claims she does her own research always. Says buyer beware because she sees bad stuff at large auction houses. Also she says that if you are suspicious or feel something is not right about a purchase you made at a major auction house like Juliens, ask for a refund and you will get it because the houses do not want a bad reputation and they will not be around long if they do not give the refunds. itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id371924150# She is podcast #4 Laura Woolley 6/30/2011
Prop Talk by The Original Prop Blog
itunes.apple.com
Preview and download the podcast Prop Talk by The Original Prop Blog on iTunes. Read episode descriptions and customer reviews.
Billie Jean After listening to Laura Woolley's podcast, click on Podcast #5 and listen to Darren Julien. What he says in this podcast, contradicts what he did in this auction - people had questions and he ignored.

Stacee Brown If everyone would just slow down, think, research properly, and stop acting like these people are perfect and would never do any wrong then maybe they will find the truth somewhere...The truth always comes out especially when stories are being twisted and contradicting. Everyone has a right to believe what they want but if those who are interested in knowing the truth would do their own research and look at ALL sides then they will find the truth..its plain as day.

Helen Schroeder Helen Schroeder Ivy Mjjc, it's irrelevant whether or not the standee is a bootleg or not - as you yourself pointed out, calling it a bootleg actually makes it even MORE problematic. I don't have to repeat all the points that have been made several times above ("psychic bootlegger??").Also, Advantage/Bravado SAW the photograph of the Julien standee and did not call it a bootleg. Julien has not "rebutted" anything, he's reaching for straws. He spun a frankly crazy tale about the background and shoes being different. He keeps changing his story on the standee - he really is not credible at all. He has not answered any of the crucial points and has been caught in several lies: 1) He DID tell people the autographs were signed under the influence of drugs 2) He WAS warned weeks before the auction date that the signatures were problematic 3) His "authenticator" is not an authenticator at all but an appraiser. 4) This story was not started by bad authenticators, but by concerned fans. There's more but I don't have the time at the moment.

Laura Panunzio Well, Helen with this: 'I'm looking for the truth *in the interest of fans and collectors* who have potentially been cheated out of literally millions of dollars', I see your point but I'm always 100% convinced that unless Michael Jackson resuscitates no 100% truth will be ever told. No-one of us is a lawyer nor enttiled to 'protect interest of buyers'. Various times, we contacted Branca's office and Langford too about scammers and fake signatures or fake 'so-called' worn items and do you want to know their answer? Do you want to know what lawyers and those who are entitled to 'protect fans and their interests', said? Well, they said they cannot do ANYTHING! Only fans must be careful when they buy items and do not send money so easily to everyone. This was valid before Michael's death and now 10,000 times more. The fact he cannot be here to answer says a lot. So whatever we can say, speculate, argue, it's and will be only our opinion. So discuss further this, going back and forth 100000000 times with the same words and comments and doubts, doesn't change ANYTHING. Then, I bet that majority of people here never bought a signed item nor a single item from Julien's for lack of money or other reasons, so those who are so unsecure and doubtful can just keep on living without having a signed, worn or not worn Michael's item and spend money in something else. Nobody is forced to buy signed items at any cost and at Julien's if someone feels uncomfortable on this company. No doctor said that buying signed or rare items it's a care for a bad disease, so instead of wasting your time and mine, just not buy it. That's it!

Julia Thomas No that's not it. If fans care , and we choose to have our voice heard we have that right. It doesn't matter I can't afford an item from Juliens. The fake signatures are to make sure the items are more costly. Of course there is nothing we can do . Duh, that's the estate job. But as usual they have no interest in anything nothing but making money. Michael doesn't have to be here to let most of us know. He spoke about this for years. Being used and abused, now in death. In the end God will deal with them all. But putting the word out there, let's others know. They are still at it. Maybe one day, someone of power will care . And all these little fights will not be in vain. Maybe his kids. One other thing, I don't see the point of having a page/forum and not thoroughly discussing what you have posted. I mean there's a posted interview. I have never went on a groups page and asked whose it was and was ignored. Deleting myself .my first time posting and not impressed.

Laura Panunzio Julia Thomas, we offered a place where even the other side had a chance to speak out. Even, if I wasn't so favorable to this as I knew that those who were doubtful, would have remained in their position, no matter what. Then, should we discuss this up to next year and for what? Instead of wasting our time, yours and ours too, staying on FB which doesn't give anything, why don't we all do something Michael would have liked it much more? Helping kids, animals and those in difficulties? Time and energy wasted don't come back unfortunately and every day is important to do things to improve ourselves and help others. I don't want to make any more useless fight, any more war against windmills, as power of money won't ever be defeated and we can see this every single minute in every corner of the world. Michael was probably killed (intentionally or unintentionally) 'cos they wanted his money and 'cos he was worth more dead than alive. Said this, let's All of you keep on arguing, if this makes you feel better and closer to him, but in the meantime, there could be someone who needs You outside and you don't have time to even listen to him/her 'cos too much concentrated on this. You know, I'm a fighter by nature and I made my battles from 1993 to 2010 (Starting with Chandler's allegations and ending with TINI) for Michael, but now I'm tired and understood that the only thing I obtained was to waste my time and money 'cos justice doesn't exist on Earth. So now, I'll use my life for uselful things and try to follow Michael's lessons, such as help the others. I'm 100% sure he will be happier with this and nobody will change my mind. Then, I decided to do our site to have fun and distract only as I have already too much drama in my life and my family and it's enough for me.

Ron Sweet @Ivy: Do you know if those items you mention were designed, manufactured, and licensed all by Bravado? It would seem to contradict what Felix says in his testimony (also, Thriller 25 was part of a separate campaign from 2008, and all other Thriller items I saw back then were all branded somehow with “This Is It”).
Anyway, the key here is the SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE of the Bravado and Triumph logos (on the standee) which only could have taken place AFTER Michael's passing. There is no pre-6/25 item (official, bootlegged, or otherwise) that contains the simultaneous existence of these two logos, and as Christine mentioned, they would have to be a “psychic bootlegger” to be able to reproduce this particular item FOUR MONTHS prior to its commercial release (complete with both the Bravado and Triumph logos). There is no evidence to the contrary (apart from the suggestion that it could be “possible” from Darren Julien, which is only a theory based on opinion and not supported by any facts).
@Richard/Stacee, actually, it would be easy enough to contact the actual people at Bravado and/or Advanced who were directly involved in the creation and production of this particular standee (not Felix, but those under him who do the actual creation/production) and get some specific sworn testimony from them. In fact, if I was an attorney handling this (imagined) case, that would be the FIRST thing I would do. But I’m not, and I don’t have the time or desire to hunt that down, especially when I already know what the outcome would be. Also, consider that this “psychic bootlegger” would almost HAVE to have been a Bravado or Advanced Graphics employee, since they would have been the first ones to know about the proposed line of standees that were to be created (which I still allege could only have taken place sometime after August 21st, 2009). If only we could find this bootlegger (I would love to find out who wins the Super Bowl as I could make a LOT of money from that especially before the actual teams are known). Perhaps he could also explain how and where Michael Jackson came into possession of this bootleg (before 6/25 of course), and why he decided to sign it “To Bush Love Michael Jackson” (wow, he must have been thinking “Where the FU@K did this thing come from?!”) and why and how and when he gave it to Michael Bush (again, must have been before 6/25). Because, apart from the words of Julien and Bush, there isn’t a shred of evidence that any of that actually could have taken place (in fact, all the facts point the other way).
Let me give you a theory that is much more plausible. SOMEONE (other than MJ) signed this standee as "Michael Jackson" thinking it was produced in 1990 (or at least before 6/25/09) with the intent to later sell it as an autographed item to make money. None of us here can disprove that, and I think that most people will agree that this is what actually happened. But just to clarify, I can’t say for certain if that person was Michael Bush or someone else entirely. My own opinion is that Darren Julien and Michael Bush are simply just “easy scapegoats” because those are the only two people publicly known by the rest of us (and hence, I really can’t condone the level of vicious bashing and verbal attacks that have been hurled at them). Logic would tell us there are people behind the scenes (who we don’t even know by name) who orchestrated this, and that Julien and Bush are among the “victims” (yes, they are very RICH victims, but victims and scapegoats nonetheless). Just my two cents.

Don Barcardi as Laura and Ron have said a number of times there is a major differential with the Court of Public Opinon -vs- Court of Law.
Making unneeded defamatory statements leads nowhere and there have been a bundle of them throughout the blogs. The only person who knows what really went on is Bush & so far he "ain't talking". One thing Darren said that he obviously believes; "I am confident that the items are authentic, as represented by Michael Bush". Key operative words, "as represented". Darren was frankly foolish in other statements that have been criticized and rightly so based on inaccurate information he may have been provided. It's better to simply say, "i Don't know" or "didn't lend any credence to early critics for a variety of reasons" then respond as he did.
Trying to repute previous statements that were indeed made with half baked manufactured statements is not smart nor do I believe much due diligence was really done on authenticity. It won't be the first time an auction house places too much credibility with consignors. Thus to use his own words, "fans should take into account when deciding to give weight to any of the responses being made".
As far as the style goes there is an abundance of evidence based on known handwriting examinations that would lead one to rightly question authenticity. That nut may never be cracked completely for the reasons Ron cites. While I could expound on theories and authenticators/cation - Let me end with Roger is a very good music opinionator who only specializes in the music genre. Does he make mistakes, yes. Has he, yes. And when he does he doesn't hide it under the covers. If Roger indicated initially that these signed items don't look authentic then rest assured Don Barcardi would pass on them unless the garment is the common denominator as signatures can be removed. For those without garments the buyers need to come to their own conclusions and go thru the arbitration JAMS process of the T&Cs if hard ball is needed or as they say in Jersey, Time to take the gloves off and do it jersey style"..
I tend to concur with Ron’s analysis on this standee and it would be great to eliminate any wiggle room and replace a speculative statement with a factual one and let the chips fall where they may.

Billie Jean good post DB

Ron Sweet Yes, turn the light on and let the rats run squealing. We will most likely never have a definitive answer unless there is a court case that covers this issue (which I doubt is going to come about). But if there ever was such a thing, one of the first things I would do would be to subpeona the internal (email/fax/etc.) communications within Bravado/Advanced Graphics and the external communications between Bravado and Advanced. Because somewhere in there you would see the initial direction and conception of the deigns that were to be used for those standees. And it would not be very difficult at all to ascertain that the conception of these designs happened well after 6/25. That would easily put to rest any "psychic bootlegger" theory once and for all. And from there, that would open up the door to seriously questioning authenticity of other autographs with that similar "style". But these are matters best left for those with a lot of extra time and money on their hands (alas, I don't qualify). And as they say in Texas, I don't have a horse in this race. LOL. ;-)

Ron Sweet @Julia Thomas "Whose site is this?" If you mean www.mjjcollectors.com, that site is owned by Ron Sweet and Laura Panunzio. If you mean this FB group, it was "opened" by me, but Laura runs it. It is "owned" (unfortunately) by FaceBook, however. ;-)

Helen Schroeder Brilliant summary, Ron Sweet and Don Barcardi, thank you! Laura Panunzio, I hear you. I'm not normally in the habit of fighting windmills and you are absolutely right that, sadly, in this world money and power will generally win. The reason I find it so hard to give up in this instance is that I believe that this once we have a chance of winning because it looks like there is irrefutable physical evidence. IMO the autographs themselves are enough and I am 100% confident that any independent expert would conclude they are fake. But in this rare case we have more than that, and that's why the niggly little details are so important and I simply can't let misinformation pass without comment. Bear with us a little bit longer, then all the relevant information will be on this thread to find for collectors who are interested in finding the truth. But I simply can't let Julien use this interview to spin his story unchallenged when he is MANIFESTLY peddling untruths - not matters of opinion, but easy to prove, straightforward misinformation. I agree with Ron, at this stage it is uncertain who the culprit behind the autographs is (although everything points in one direction) and all I am criticising Julien for is 1) his lack of diligence accepting the items 2) his treatment of the people who asked questions beforehand and of the buyers who are trying to get a refund now (there are more than three, believe me. And they aren't rich either) 3) his blatant attempts at misinformation and deflection in his statements and interviews now. If there was nothing wrong with the items he could have done his research and given us a proper explanation. Instead he comes up with "the shoes are different" and "I never said that" and "Nobody told me", all of which is simply untrue and undermines his position as an innocent bystander. Not that I am surprised by this, of course - what do we EXPECT him to say? He has been selling this particular type of autographs for years since MJ's death (the first appearance of this style is being researched as we speak), and "signed" items to Lady Gaga alone in excess of $300,000. There is NO WAY he can take the fingers out of his ears and open his eyes now, even if he was originally duped himself. Maybe we will never get a court case, and maybe they will get away with it and hundreds of buyers will have been defrauded. But the least we can do is try to put the information out there to warn fellow collectors and prevent this autograph style from being "canonised" unquestioned.

Ivy Mjjc Bingo Ron & Don. Helen this is what you missed in my post. I approach many stuff from legal perspective and there's a huge difference between a public opinion and court of law. That's why I used the term "reasonable doubt". Let me explain it a little bit further.
What public defines as fraud and what law sees as fraud are generally two different things. For example law requires fraud to result in an injury to the person - in most instances it means money damage. That shows you that the fans that didn't buy anything aren't victims. That also shows why Estate has NO legal standing to bring any complaint against any scam or fake autograph out there. (Some people might think Estate is the superman of the all MJ related stuff but they aren't. They are limited by law. They can't stop people from selling their stuff whether it is MJ collectible, clothing or autograph and they can't make claims on the behalf of other people. And no they can't make copyright claims on handwritten signatures, that's just silly talk )
Secondly fraud requires not only a statement of material fact but ALSO the knowledge that the statement is untrue. For example imagine that back in the day I sent a letter to MJJ Productions and got a letter back with signed photo in it. I believe that the signature is authentic (when in reality it's a secretarial). If I say "here's an authentic MJ signature" it's not fraud because I have no idea that the signature is not authentic and I believe it's legit. Belief doesn't equal to intentional lying. Misinformation doesn't equal to intentional lying. Going back to Julien's and Bush, I think it's obvious that Julien's is believing what Bush told him and Julien's statements & item descriptions are done in good faith belief - hence not satisfy legal definition of fraud. Plus Julien's "5 year warranty and refund if two experts say it's not authentic" term doesn't show an intent to defraud people. Similarly as Ron pointed out no one knows how Bush got these signatures. For example imagine if he left the items with MJ's bodyguards and later received the items signed from them, he could have believed that these are legit signatures when let's say that a bodyguard was signing them. Again that would not be fraud. This should also explain why Estate again not jumping into this, not only they don't have standing (as explained before), it will be really hard for them or anyone for that matter to prove that not only the statements are untrue but the parties knew them to be untrue. That's also the reason why the experts such as Cyrkin, Epperson and Frost doesn't blame Julien's for fraud or made no statements about who allegedly faked the signatures. Also let me point out that both Juliens and fans have pointed out similar signatures at previous auctions. If any of these previous items are consigned by someone other than Bush, it would debunk "Bush faked the signatures" claim. (currently people are assuming the previous items also came from Bush, however if this is not the case it would seriously hurt the fans argument) This is also the reason why I don't join in criminal accusations and people bashing. It's a dangerous road in which you can accuse the wrong person. and being Michael Jackson fans we all should have learned very well what could false accusations do to a person.
Furthermore it's highly unlikely that these authenticator experts would mean much in a court of law. US courts aren't that open to such experts because such determination is highly subjective. It also doesn't help that these people have not seen the items in person or some of them keep repeatedly saying "I'm no expert". Plus don't forget that for every Dr.Shafer there will be a Dr. White - meaning for every expert you have probably Julien's / Bush would be able to come up with their own experts that says the opposite. And this could end being inconclusive as far as the courts are concerned.
Again I'm not making any claims about the standee and I personally do think that the bootleg standee claim is highly questionable but from legal perspective it might not be provable either. Julien's claim that it's bootleg and a minor difference on the "lifesize standee" logo might be enough reasonable doubt in a court of law. Some might think the bootleg claim was a foolish statement but from another perspective I would think it might be a good idea. Like Ron pointed out Bravado and Advanced Graphics people would be able to definitively put the production of the standee months after Michael's death and debunk prototype claims but Julien's "it's not official it's a bootleg so what Bravado says has no bearing on the issue" gives them a nice wiggle room. Again I'm not saying I believe the bootleg argument - I don't.
Ron - I don't think a lawsuit is likely given that their terms specify that 1) they would return the money if two experts say the items are not authentic and 2) the parties agree to arbitration. I would imagine that the most that will happen is a private arbitration - if any buyer has the funds for it. A quick google search shows that it would take several thousands of dollars to pursue an arbitration.

Helen Schroeder Thanks, Ivy Mjjc, I understand all your excellent points and like I say, I'm not accusing anyone of anything that I do not know for a fact they have done. In Julien's case that is misrepresenting the facts. In no way am I saying that he set out to knowingly commit fraud. But he certainly has not displayed any eagerness to find out the truth after being alerted to the problem. If Darren Julien remains duped it's willful blindness at this stage and unfortunately his attempts at damage control are not helping him look innocent at all. And btw, to date Julien's Auctions have also not adhered to their own terms and conditions. I only know of one buyer who got a refund (apart from, presumably, the buyer of the standee), everyone else who has been in touch has had the same letter basically saying Laura Woolley authenticated the autographs (untrue), that no experts have come out to say the autographs look fake (untrue), that the doubters are all malicious and uninformed (untrue), and that that's the end as far as they are concerned. People have also been told that Julien "misspoke" when he promised refunds to anyone who had concerns (NBC interview). What buyers SHOULD have gotten according to Julien's own terms and conditions is the offer of settling the matter with the aid of independent experts. As for Bush, I am not claiming to have legally relevant evidence that he himself was the forger (though a handwriting expert might come up with some...). That's why I don't tend to mention him at all, only the autographs which are on items he had in his possession and which he collected the money for. But it is fair to say that on the face of it, it's hard to think of an explanation other than that he must have been involved one way or the other. The bodyguard scenario just doesn't convince. MLB is a *visual artist* who worked for Michael for years and years and he owns several authentic autographs and dedications (shown in his book): he should have spotted fakes from miles off. And there's still the question why he would suddenly get the urge to get hundreds of pieces of clothing and worthless junk signed, as if he was psychic, too and knew that autographs would soon be worth even more... Oh, and woops, there's the small matter of the standee, of course. When did he leave that with the bodyguards to sign while Michael was still alive, then? I do take on board what you say about the earlier Julien auctions selling the same style autograph. The next step is obviously to ask for provenance. Unfortunately, Julien has undermined his own credibility with his sloppy answers/research to date to a degree that I'm not sure any of his statements can be taken seriously if not supported by hard evidence.

Billie Jean I just received an email from Advanced Graphics. I asked about the different logos - oval and rectangle. I showed them both logos on the standees. The rectangle is OLDER! The OVAL logo is NEWER! Hah! The psychic bootlegger knew that Advanced Graphics would CHANGE their logo to oval from rectangle! Wow they are really good. Anyway, this is more proof that the Standee signing of "To Bush Love Michael Jackson" was intentional fraud in my opinion by whoever signed it and the other sigs.

Helen Schroeder Oh, it just gets better and better, doesn't it ? With that, even the prototype scenario is dead in the water.

Andy Healy Whilst I appreciate the interview taking place, after all Darren Juliens didn't have to do this interview, there are just too many inconsistencies on BOTH sides of the questions to truly resolve the issue. As we have seen, Michael's signature has had variations over the years, and the "looped n" has been present in signatures signed in person by Michael. Additionally, The Triumph International business was indeed in operation during the period of 2007 - 2009 as proven by the Hot Toys Bille Jean figure produced in 2008. Sadly these issues just muddy the water and we are really no closer to a resolution. Has anyone who owns one of the Standees in question done a side by side comparison to see if what Darren Juliens says is correct with regards to the artwork changes? To me this item alone is the biggest cause for concern, and it is this that casts doubt over all other items. Whilst I thought Darren Juliens was fairly forthcoming with his responses, I have to say doubt still lingers around this issue. And it unlikely it will ever be resolved to all our satisfactions.

Helen Schroeder Sorry for the reposts, my daughter keeps interrupting with her little fingers on the keyboard . Andy Healy please read this thread carefully, all the facts are there and I'm afraid there is absolutely no wriggle room. There are detailed pictures of a standee which was sold on Amazon and the Julien catalogue image. Re. the Triumph logo: If you look closely the Triumph logo is a version which was never used while Michael was alive (this is new information by Michael's Wendy). Yes, I have compared the standee images inch by inch and they are exactly the same photo, including the logos, except for one detail: a blurb in the top right corner reading "life size stand up". It's oval on Julien's stand and rectangular on a picture a fan posted of a standee she owns. Read BillieJean's post above: the print company has acutally confirmed that the oval version is of a LATER print run than the rectangular one. If it's a bootleg it was produced even later or the bootlegger was time travelling. PERIOD. The signature on that standee is EXACTLY the same style as all the other suspect autographs in the auction, including the "To Bush" dedication. CASE CLOSED. It's time to acknowledge the facts now guys. Please stop pretending there is any room for doubt or it's all a grey area and a matter of opinion. The earth isn't flat. This. Standee. Was. Produced. Post. Mortem.

Andy Healy Helen Schroeder - thanks for the update. I guess all I am saying is that when you do a side by side does what Mr Juliens claim - the stretching of the image etc match up. I am not saying it proves it is legit, I am just saying if we are to find the truth we have to investigate both sides objectively. I agree that there seems to be no evidence to suggest the Bravado / Triumph logo was used during Michael's life and this is indeed a tell tale sign. But likewise claiming Triumph International was not being used is incorrect. I was just pointing out that in this debate there have been inconsistencies on both sides of the argument. Like all fans, what matters most to me is the truth - I have no vested interest in guilt or innocence. I just want to know the truth and how it came to be. I do not support the fans being taken advantage of or lied to, in the same way that I don't support besmirching people's reputations. If an explanation is given then it should be investigated and proven or disproved. As always, the truth will win out. And I am supportive of all who are looking into this matter.

Don Barcardi @Helen it's good to have passion but better to stay even keeled as others may not embrace something doesn't mean they are wrong nor does it mean they need to be beat about the head with a stick. Someones facts may simply be someone elses view of individual interpretation. I had created an analogy of an incident some years ago involving industrial "espionage" that I was a chief internal investigator on. Choose not to publish it here as the subject matter was different. The moral however that somehow production markings that were thought to never ever be available until the product was actually released could ever be denoted before being released. We learned there was more than one leak. Someone answering a question in 2013 may or may not be the same factual piece of evidence or even the same answer that might have been available in 2009. Each puzzle piece obtained becomes simply another possible clue to ponder about before one can conclude that it was indeed Colonel Mustard in the pantry with the lamp who did it. The only people that can truly answer this would be the owner of the item and how it was obtained and from whom. Stay the course as all the pieces of information may play an important role even if it is just in the Court of Public Opinion.

Helen Schroeder Don Barcardi I haven't been unfriendly, have I? Sorry if it comes across that way, it's certainly not meant to be. Look at my post, all I'm saying that the last word on the standee is in. There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the standee Julien sold, bootleg or no bootleg, can only have been produced after Michael's passing. Anyone can make up their own mind as to what that means. But that one fact is now indisputable, that's why I keep repeating myself . And yes, Andy Healy, like Don says the puzzle has been coming together gradually, so on the way some things have been said that turned out not to be correct. But please don't let that distract from what we now know with absolute certainty. Again, please read carefully. The Julien standee matches the official Bravado one inch by inch, down to the company logos. In fact, the Julien standee has been confirmed to be a LATER print run than even the one that first came out in August 2009. WE KNOW that it first came out in August 2009 because Bravado have confirmed that it did.

Don Barcardi Not unfriendly from my viewpoint but others are entitled to their views as well. Doesn't make them bad people and I fully realize it's tough to become repetitious as sometimes it can come across being "short". Everything can be disputed especially foolish responses to Q&As. Somewhere along the line several had stated Wooley did not authenticate anything and have used the KNBC news at 11 and the PodCast to justify their position. That is fine from that person's interpretation. However, if you listen to the entire broadcast of over an hour she has in fact been asked for her opinions on signatures. I didn't get the comfort level that she prefers that side to the appriasal side however. Then again, I wonder who did the appraisal on this "standee" or was one ever done? Having dealt with the press there are lots of elements of a report that end up with "reporter leeway" that takes place. There was no doubt in my mind that again signiicant reliance was placed on the consignor. There is also a lack of insight if she truly believes that PSA/DNA QO is something to hang one's hat on. Thus, it may not always be as it appears when it reaches the airwaves. The only person that can refute the answer given by Juliens as to how much involvement she did have would be a public statement from her. Just another example. It would be nice to see that statement made as she seems reputable and sincere about what she does and if someone has mischaracterized her one would think they would want to clear the air.

Ivy Mjjc Don Barcardi Actually if you look to Wooley's website under professional services she has listed "research and authentication". She may not be doing the signature evaluations herself but it's a service that she provides. Her website writes and I quote "The Collector's Lab relies upon a vast network of recognized databases, auction records, prominent specialists, and years of research experience to produce reliable conclusions regarding the authenticity and provenance of property." So overall both statements might be correct. That Julien's is using her research, authentication and appraisal and that she's not doing authentication herself but relying on prominent specialists.

Helen Schroeder Don Barcardi and Andy Healy Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but like I say, at some point the evidence is just overwhelming. I won't point it all out again, it's all in the last statements above (especially Ron's and Billie Jean's). All I can say is that completely objectively, Julien has not managed to bring to the table a SINGLE shred of evidence which explains the standee, on the contrary his statements about it have been wrong every time he mentioned it (it's not a poster, the images are not different, same background, same shoes, same company logos). He hasn't even said that he knows for a fact it's a bootleg. He said they "concluded it must be a bootleg" because the images "deviate". But they DO NOT DEVIATE, so his conjecture, however he arrived at it, is completely and utterly unfounded. Whereas on the other side we have the statement of the companies who actually made the object and who have been absolutely clear about the timeline. Again. Draw what conclusions you wish about all the rest, but at this point the matter of the standee is settled.

Andy Healy Helen - I don't think we are on opposing sides of this. I am just asking if anyone has done the side by side comparison between what was auctioned and the finished product. A quick scan online seems to suggest the final image has been stretch and / or the auctioned item image was compressed - which I think was the deviation mentioned but I don't personally own the standee so don't want to offer conjecture if this is indeed the case, thus my question. Now this doesn't explain away the dubious (c) date but I am just double checking all sides.

Don Barcardi @Ivy - that is also correct as well. Since there was no mention of "3rd party involvement" in either doesn't mean, as you imply, that it didn't occur. A public statement however would put to bed the speculation theories and validating or refuting many statements of "fact" from my viewpoint. @Helen - you keep right on with what you believe to be the evidence while evaluating new puzzle pieces that may come in. Since the "standee" has been "cancelled" it does seem to complicate what is settled. Perhaps from a "legal auction obligation" but like you I am far from convinced it is settled from the court of public opinion. It really is too bad that Bush has not, regardless of reason, identifided where it came from and when and that presumes he actually knows.

Helen Schroeder Ivy Mjjc Just because she uses the word "authenticity" doesn't mean she talks about signatures, in fact she talks about "property". The NBC report quotes her saying that based on the *provenance* she believes the signatures are real, but that she also told the reporters that she's not an authenticator of autographs. Of course it could be a misquote by the reporters, but what reason do we have to assume that? What's clear from both the podcast and the NBC report is that while she might give an opinion on autographs she is NOT an expert.

Ivy Mjjc Helen Schroeder well Cyrkin is also not an expert and always says "I'm not an expert, this is a hobby" but that doesn't stop you from taking everything he says as gospel and refer to him as an expert. So why do you have any issues with Julien seeing Wooley as an expert and being satisfied with her opinion?

Helen Schroeder Andy Healy That's not the deviation that was mentioned. Julien cryptically talks about "the measurements of MJ's face" being different, but then goes on to say the licence plates in the background and the shoes are different, which they are manifestly not. But that's completely beside the point now. The presence of the other logos and the blurb in the top right corner date the Julien standee - bootleg or no - without a shadow of a doubt. For a bootleg to match all the details it can only have been produced even LATER than the original. And we know when the original was made: after August 2009.

Helen Schroeder Ivy Mjjc I have said time and time again, I don't need any authenticator to tell me that those signatures are fake. I stumbled across Cyrkin's site completely by accident during my research into the autographs. I have never referred to any experts here in this discussion, except to say that several have come out against the interviews, which is the truth. I don't need an authenticator: I am not selling autographs for thousands of dollars.

Andy Healy I took the deviation - the measurements of MJ's face being different - to mean the picture had been stretched - which it appears in the available standees it has been, in fact the whole image has been. Agree that the number plates and shoes remain the same, so he is incorrect there. Again I am not explaining away the copyright inconsistency, I am just checking what he has said and looking at it objectively. As I mentioned it doesn't explain away the date issue, but seems to add to the inconsistency between the auctioned item and the final product, whatever that means.

Don Barcardi Now, now everyone play nice in the sandbox or I'm taking my shovel and pail and going home That is the problem of "experts" and is a subject all on it's own. One example to point this fact out is with PSA/DNA QO. They have indicated on multi-lot submissions that if one is found to be, in whoever is the opinor of the day, not authentic they will reject the entire lot without looking at it. Is that the right thing to do? Not in my opinion. Now as to this completely different style, if someone is under the influence of something (and contrary to all the "medical students" who claimed that the handwriting would not be altered) either don't realize the affect of some narcotics to not only cause hallucinations or euphoric effects... well ya can't fix "stupid". That was a "reasonable explanation" to a point but there would typically be unreconizable characters as well or one would think. However, that claim in the Q&A has now been discounted hasn't it. Thus, there is one fact that one ought to be able to embrace and that is, this signature style has never surfaced from a number of sources from inperson to exemplars that peple have. That should be enough to raise everyone's antennae and "curiosity"

Michael's Wendy www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/NBC4-I-Team-Joel-Grover-Investigation-Michael-Jackson-Autographed-Memorabilia-Auction-184043141.html "But Woolley told the I-Team she’s an appraiser of auction items, not an autograph authenticator. And she said one of the authenticators used by the I-Team, PSA/DNA, is reputable.
"I think they do great work," she said of PSA/DNA. "

Don Barcardi That is what was reported according to the ITEam. Do you believe for one minute that it was the only "statements" made?. Someone so intertwined with the auction being investigated is reduced to allegedly 3 short statements as relayed by the ITeam. Funny thing about adults they can speak up to a thousand words per minute and most note takers can write about every other word and I've always wondered which ones were missed. Of course it must have been recorded and with editors and the wonders of the cutting room to fit time limits one also has to wonder what was the full context of the discussion. For those of us who have been in front or involved with TV Crews lots gets left on the editing floor. As far as her statement as was reported presuming it is complete and accurate of PSA/DNA -vs- PSA/DNA QO she is certainly entitled to that belief although I believe in the PodCast she thinks of PSA/DNA linked moreso to Sports than entertaiment. Nonetheless, she is entitled to her opinion but there is flaw in her knowledge banks from my perspective that being said.

Helen Schroeder Andy Healy I don't think we are, either . But in order to objectively weigh the arguments one has to look at which ones are relevant and what's just noise. The dimensions don't matter because more important details match (design detail and logos). The only thing that matters about the Julien standee is the timeline, i.e. whether it's possible that MJ signed it when he was alive. And all actually verifiable evidence points towards the conclusion that it could not have been.

Don Barcardi @helen; have you ever considered creating a chart of each point with support illustrations as requisite? This way all the key points, collected information and illustrations are all on a few pieces of paper. This way, if a new puzzle piece comes out it can be aeasily added and evaluated. In another life i use to run a college debate team that toured many colleges such as emerson and for every point there can be a counterpoint but when properly prepared a chart is worth a thousand words. & even if it doesn't get out of the court of public opinion, w/o valid counterpoints with supporting information to the contrary the "pyschi" point will be held upto ridicule. Once held upto ridicule the counterpoint is forever lost in a debate that is

Ron Sweet Hey guys. Don't have time to read all the above "new" posts just yet (will do so tomorrow), but for me it all comes down to this line from the Felix testimony: "After Mr. Jackson's untimely death on June 25, 2009, Bravado entered into agreements with the Estate of Michael Jackson and Triumph International, Inc…The Probate Court with jurisdiction over the Estate approved these agreements on August 21, 2009." The two operative statements here are AFTER MJ's passing (6/25/09) and the August 21st, 2009 date where the agreement between Bravado and Triumph was finalized. It all comes down to exactly that, and unless someone finds something to contradict that, it is quite clear what we are dealing with here, isn't it? There was no agreement between Bravado and Triumph International, Inc. until August 21st, 2009. Therefore, there could not exist any product with Bravado AND Triumph logos on it (official, bootlegged, or otherwise) until well after MJ’s passing. And any info we find is only going to further confirm what we already know...