PDF Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Updated Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Updated Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Updated Edition) book. Happy reading Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Updated Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Updated Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Updated Edition) Pocket Guide.

Obviously he was a dad, he was a son. We need to wake up to how easy it is for us to be lulled into a false sense of security. Right now, people are in contemplative mode. I think maybe for his 20th anniversary people will consider doing a [Jackson] music special. After the dust settles a little bit, people might be able to separate the music from the individual. Every season of the Fox musical family drama has ended with a cliffhanger to tease the turmoil that awaits upon the [ After Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, celebrities took to Twitter.

She will play a Greek goddess named Demeter who is entangled in an [ You will be redirected back to your article in seconds. The thing is there is so much false information mixed up with some truth, that it takes a long time to respond to the falsehoods. I grew up with Michael and believe me there was no lightening of his complexion in the 70's--where did Sullivan get this one from? Too many things are made up, and we have only seen some excerpts.

Gee, even Roger is mad, but to me they are birds of a feather. While the first two, starting in , occurred after Jackson broke his nose in a fall. I've read this story about Michael broking his nose in a fall many times and always wondered if it's true or not. Can anyone confirm? I remember reading way back when that Michael did have a nose job. This was around the late70s. He was practicing and fell and damaged his nose, so he had to get a second one.

Now whether this was true or not I do not know, but I do remember looking at him around when he was about 17 and noticing that his nose was slightly different, so again Sullivan is wrong. Michael did not have his first nose job in Then, he talks about how this guy said Michael could not find his room and look at what conclusions he made with this. It is like everything Michael does and say has to be analyzed. So if I cannot find my hotel room it means that I cannot take care of my daily life? I don't know about Sullivan and his source, but I have been to some of the hotels where Michael stayed, and believe me it is like a maze when you get upstairs.

I remember at the Ballagio having to walk back and forth on my floor looking for my room the first time I left it. I had a stupid look on my face as I tried to read the numbers placed on signs and still I had to back track trying to find my room. An older couple saw me, and the woman said, "you look just how I look when I am trying to find my room.

So obviously what happened to Michael could happen to anyone, especially if you do not have your key with the number on it. It seems he was trying to remember from memory and all the guy had to say the first time Michael was lost, was hey your number is XYZ. Yes, I remember reading about this story that Michael was practicing and fell and broke his nose from a pretty much credible source, but don't remember which one. And Sullivan's source for this hotel room story is Marc Schaffel. A very credible person don't you think? Michael's first nose job was either in late or early Not The "nose jar" story is from Adrian McManus, someone who Michael sued in the 90s and has even been caught stealing from her own young nieces and nephews.

He says Michael moved into Neverland in , Michael bought Neverland in and moved in in early Both Frank Cascio and Stacy Brown were there. Stacy drew up the contracts. In the end, Jermaine acquiesced and the show went on. And they had a big fight at their hotel. Sullivan should have done a little more research.

Stacy Brown who admitted to lying on the witness stand in ? Does he think people don't remember that? And when he didn't have 13 financial problems, he said there wasn't any, right 14 A. Well, if that's how you -- 15 Q. All these leeches and fantasy fiction writers really are living it up. Another piece of trash book. Don't waste your time on it.

And Roger Friedman is no better. Back in Schaffel made insinuations that Michael was a pedo, just to try to make him settle with him in a court case. I hope you don't consider such a person very credible. I don't understand the fans who want to believe only in parts about his family :ph34r: : Blink: I'm not a fan of them, but not worth giving credibility to excerpts from this book just because you do not like the Jacksons, from what I read here this book is based on pure BS and strongly believe that not only in the passages that are about Michael. All the other stuff seems obviously from Schaffel and people like that, nobody I'd ever give any mind to even if they said Mike had vitiligo, was innocent, blah blah, the only kind of crap I'd believe from them would be their silence.

I imagine the anonymous unidentified sources he has for some things are even worse. It shows he just liked the trashiness of it all too much to resist, which speaks volumes about the rest of his stuff. According to a new book called "Untouchable" by Randall Sullivan Michael, his kids and several relatives hightailed it to White Plains, NY a few days after the Twin Towers were hit in order to catch a private plane back to L. But according to Sullivan, when M. Sullivan says the duo exchanged verbal blows over who got the plane Sullivan says Jackson eventually changed his mind at the last minute and wanted to get to L.

The book claims Jackson then changed his mind again and sent his mother and some relatives on the bus -- and Sony was forced to send a second plane.

  • Baked Explorations!
  • Tales From Time-Out;
  • Kris Longknife: Audacious (Kris Longknife Series Book 5).
  • Nonlinear Filtering and Stochastic Control: Proceedings of the 3rd 1981 Session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (C.I.M.E.), Held at Cortona, July 1–10, 1981.
  • Ortho-Bionomy: A Practical Manual.
  • The Energy Method, Stability, and Nonlinear Convection (Applied Mathematical Sciences)?
  • Black & White.

The moral of the story is to work for Sony The only problem Sony eventually let MJ have it, claims the book. But sources close to Wahlberg tell TMZ the whole thing is a work of fiction. We're told Mark had no need for a plane from Sony to fly back to Los Angeles because he had his own. It is just the way that Sullivan analyzed the incident to form a conclusion that irritates me, since anyone who does not have a key to the room will be lost.

Because Michael is lost does not mean he cannot handle his life. That is my point, not whether the source is credible. Roger Friedman is embarrassing himself trying to show Randall up: All these leeches and fantasy fiction writers really are living it up. The nose was done in the 70's initially and the 2nd one was done because of an injury. If we go through that book with a fine tooth comb we will find several sensationalized untruths.

It could be a college thesis to read each "fact" and make notes next to it to show the reader what the actual story is. About Roger, well they are all from the same cloth. Roger is trying to show up Sullivan and then laments that Sullivan did not talk to Brown. Is Roger on crack? You can also add Gest and Schaffel to that list.

It is just a question of which of the worst is the less harmful. As we said there is truth about the incidents he writes about like issues surrounding MSG, Michael having surgery, people searching his home, but the problem is that the details are filled with lies and written in a manner to show up everyone in the book as greedy, psychos, etc. We have only seen excerpts for the book, so can you imagine how much more junk the pages have in them!!

They are beginning to cut each other's throats trying to see who could write the worst story about Michael. If I had twitter I would tweet Roger over and over to take Sullivan to court if he feels Sullivan ripped off his story and stop fighting on the computer. They are all a bunch of cowards. How brave it is to write a bunch of lies after the person is no longer here to defend himself.

One wonders why Sullivan did not write this book before OPPs: Sorry for double post. I am no fan of the Jacksons. But some of the stuff about them in that book sounds like garbage to me. Stories that were debunked a long time ago are suddenly re-appearing in the book as if they are fact. The whole thing is an absolute mess from top to bottom.

If I were the Jacksons, I would waste no time in filing a big fat lawsuit. The Jacksons would of course say that the book is full of lies if they were to release a statement. So they need to let the public know the truth about themselves and take this trash-fest collection book business to court because everything will be made public sooner or later via the media. If the Jacksons ignore this, it's not going to go away. It will undoubtedly get much worse, in my opinion. OK Wahlberg join all the others who were maligned in this book and let's go to court.

That is the only way to deal with the Sullivans. Of course he will claim innocence and say based on the Shield he cannot say who his source is and it is not his fault if a source told him it was the truth. Hopefully we will have people end up in a class action against Sullivan and have him pay settlements. King of Pop By the end of the week more people will show up saying it is all lies. I have the book and reading it. It's such a crappy book filled with mistakes.

He calls Aldo Cascio as Eddie all through the book. He says TJ has 3 sons, he doesn't. Has Mark Lester's paternity claims, a lot of talk about plastic surgery, says Michael is a virgin and so on. This is not a good book for anyone. What did he say about the allegations? I am just curious. Does he speak about Franck Branca? No lol. I should have made clear that I was being sarcastic. Well if Ivy has it and is reading it, I am hoping less fans buy it because Ivy will surely highlight the details.

They really need to work on that law to protect the dead. Do you have a link or anything where he said that? I never heard him speaking bad of Michael. Neither have I heard him making things up. His story here in the first chapter is pretty much aligned with what Wiesner wrote in his book. I don't see any screaming lies except that he mistakes Aldo for Eddie, but he could have forgotten - too many kids in the Cascio family, I don't blame him.

I don't exactly know what to think of Schaffel. I know he was a porn director and he sued Michael at one point, but as far as I understand, Michael really owed him money. It's unfortunate that it came down to a lawsuit, but it wasn't all Schaffel's fault, let's put it that way. Actually, if we look back, 3 out of 6 documentaries that have been made about Michael featuring Michael by present moment were done by Schaffel, and all three were good for Michael and appreciated by fans.

So why do fans so wholeheartedly dislike him? On a different note, his memories of the Bashir documentary and November 18 are heartbreaking :. Also about Michael's sexuality: "In earlier court papers, attorney King said that if Jackson made this claim, Schaffel would reveal "their intimate discussions" and discuss "Jackson's sexual proclivities. Earlier Schaffel claimed he had damaging tapes about Michael talking about his sexuality. Later of course, because there were no such tapes he changed his story to "intimate discussions" between them. He clearly made this claim, as well as making insinuations about Michael's sexuality to try to extort Michael, put pressure on him and make him settle with him.

More testimony in this direction, no matter how oblique, cannot be good for him. You still think Schaffel is trustworthy and never did anything harmful to Michael? Thanks, respect77, I now vaguely recall that story. But correct me if I'm wrong, I think Schaffel only claimed that he delivered money to someone in Argentina, and he didn't say what it was for other than it being a private matter. The insinuation about payoff was made by the press. Even if he completely made that payment up, it wasn't necessarily to suggest that Michael was a pedophile - he may have done it just to demand more money.

And if the whole story about Michael knowing about his past and pretending like he didn't is true which seems likely , Schaffel was understandably hurt and fired back. I'm not trying to whitewash Schaffel, I'm just seeing that the mess was pretty complicated with many people involved, and although it did play out badly for Michael in the press, especially considering the criminal trial, it wasn't necessarily Schaffel's intention to destroy him or portray him as a child molester.

And I've seen too many times that judging people's supposed intentions by press coverage can be misleading. I guess I'm just not comfortable with seeing people related to Michael in black and white, and for me there is a difference between, say, Diane Dimond who trashes Michael openly and absolutely cannot be trusted, and people like Schaffel, who may have been angry and stoop to low strategies at times, but in general have respect for Michael and did a number of good things for him.

Anyway, thanks for the links, they were helpful. More than once I have "lost" my hotel room, sometimes when park my car in the shopping mall, quite ofter I cannot remember where did I parked it :smilerolleyes: I'm not surprised if MJ could find his hotel room, he spent most of his life in hotels, and probably after a while they all look the same for his eyes.

Then again, when MJ cannot find his hotel room, it is immediately seen as he cannot deal with normal life then again, MJ didn't live normal life. The insinuation was made by Schaffel and his lawyer. Schaffel is also the source for Friedman's articles. Schaffel badly wanted a settlement and since Michael refused he tried to pressure him into it with bad publicity. It's the same tactic that the Neverland 5 tried with Michael back in the 90s Why should I give Schaffel a pass on it?

Let's have some understanding for them? Sorry, but nothing justifies Schaffel making innuendo about Michael's sexuality. Especially considering what a sensitive issue it was for him one year after the trial. Sorry but I have no understanding for such tactics. It's not some innocent claim to imply that Michael was paying off parents of young boys left and right. And it was not true, of course. You know, Evan Chandler's intention was not necessarily to destroy Michael either.

His primary goal was getting money. But because he did not, he destroyed Michael and portrayed him as a child molester. Again, how can one say let's have some understanding for people who claimed or insinuated that Michael molested children? Be it Evan or Marc Schaffel? And I don't care about their "reasons". To me nothing justifies such a lie, sorry! Seeing people black and white? Well, I acknowledge that his documentary on Michael was a good documentary. Perhapsh he had regrets after Michael's death. Perhaps he just wanted to jump on the bandwagon that the world now loved Michael again.

That does not change my opinion on him. It seems to me we have different sensitivities about people who make allegations or insinuations about Michael and his relationship with children. You defended that book because you said the rest of the book is good. It's not "black or white" thinking. It's just something I won't let people get away with.

The allegations are the worst that happened to Michael. They made his life hell.

They stained his legacy. There are still people out there who mock him for something he did not do and people who refuse to listen to his music because they think he was a child molester. How could I then say: "let's turn a blind eye on what this author implied about Michael's sexuality because she said nice things about him as an artist"? Sorry, but I won't. Same with Schaffel. Just because he made a nice docu on MJ after his death whether out of regret or out of jumping on a bandwagon I won't consider him suddenly a good and trustworthy guy.

And even besides this thing, I don't think the good he did for Michael outweighs the bad. He ripped him off financially some of that came out during that trial and IMO he, Wiesner and Koinitzer were a bad influence on Michael at the beginning of the s and a lot of his business and PR problems at the time were because he relied on these guys as his advisors. Wasn't it Frank Cascio in his book who said that Michael was very upset that John McClain suggested such a thing to him?

Schaffel is also the one that released the Anti-semite recordings. And as for the lawsuit between then they found out that Michael own Schaffel money but they also determined that Schaffel also scammed Michael. They did find out he would transfer half a million to his own account from Michael various times though. Debbie Rowe also testified about Schaffel in , saying he would brag all the time about the money he'd make off Michael, and that he had plants in the media who were selling negative stories about Michael.

I know she seems "friendly" with him now, but she hung him out to dry in and exposed a lot of his crap. Sigh:o I hope Zack's book from Forbes is properly researches and accurate. Hey, I'm not saying it justifies what he said, or made it okay, or that we all should love and embrace Schaffel. I personally have no emotions toward him whatsoever - certainly no sympathy or compassion, and if someone want to hate him - it's their right. I also agree that those 3 were poor managers for Michael. What I'm saying is one can see why he said those things back then same as one can see the reason why Chandler and Arviso turned on Michael, same as I see why that Peter Pan author had her doubts - again, it doesn't justify them in my eyes, it's simply understanding the cause and the effect.

And that gives me context for people's words and allows me - among other things - predict what can and what cannot be believed. While I wouldn't listen to what Arviso have to say today, because I know they still hold animosity towards Michael and are very likely to lie, I would give more attention to Wiesner or Schaffel because while they still tell their side of the story, it's unlikely they would badly twist or completely make up things about Michael now.

We probably read books for different reasons. Besides celebrating Michael - which not all books do - I read also for information, my goal is to understand what happened and understand each side's motives and reactions however decent or indecent they might have been because that gives me the full picture and allows me to see why Michael let certain people in or shut them out, and how he approached certain matters etc.

Again, it doesn't mean I think everything those people said about Michael was justified. But it also doesn't mean I will automatically write off their every word as a lie. I'm sorry, I don't want to digress from the topic anymore. And personally speaking, i do have emotions towards people who deliberately try to destroy another human being's reputation for money - i despise them, and tend to regard with huge suspicion their credibility and character.

MJ was such a vulnerable target for these type of opportunists, absolute nonsense can and was printed about him in his lifetime with complete impunity, that i find i have to be so careful of everything that is written. We knew it was too good to be true. No matter how many airplanes Sony have they are useless.

Just show how much truth in this stupid book. This NY Times writer obviously believes Michael was guilty - and as Ivy says, this stupid Randall gets out of the molestation by just saying Michael was a 50 year old virgin. Of course the NYTimes writer isn't convinced because they clearly think he's guilty and that Randall was using this as an excuse, as well as seeming to suggest he was too fanboyed by Mesereau to really delve into them.

The creator of the biggest-selling album of all time, who three decades ago crashed through racial barriers on the music charts, ushered in the music video age and remade the pop music landscape. Grove Press. Young Randall Sullivan In those days, before the Internet niche-ification of culture and the ridiculously accelerated spin cycle of fame, he was the avatar of the celebrity age, at once a self-conscious and self-destructive pursuant of publicity. In later years his private life — accusations of child molesting, and a swirl of lawsuits, financial woes, drug addiction and erratic behavior — increasingly came to overshadow his music.

His drug-induced death at the age of 50 in would itself turn into a worldwide spectacle of grief, speculation and unseemly jockeying for money and position among family members and lawyers. He conveys the tabloid madness that orbited around the pop star for several decades, and the grandiosity of his later self-presentations. Such accounts, however, will be highly familiar to even the casual follower of Jackson news, and all too often, this volume feels as if it were constructed out of recycled materials.

Still, Mr. Sullivan devotes a huge and depressing amount of this haphazard and unconvincing book to these subjects — in large part, it seems, because two anonymous sources had a lot to say about them. At the same time Mr. Sullivan makes no serious effort in these pages to communicate or assess the artistry that first propelled Jackson to the pinnacle of pop music. Sullivan, however, does not present any persuasive evidence regarding this assertion. Remarkably enough, Mr. Instead, Mr. Sullivan just reiterates the sorts of observations made countless times before.

He was 'presexual'?? I just googled, there's no such thing. I wonder if having a copy of 'pimps up, ho'es down' is considered pre-sexual, i really don't know. This expert diagnosis is based on how a detailed account that jordan gave to police investigators was 'undeniably disturbing'. What detailed account? None has been ever released - jordan never gave a sworn affidavit, there's just a 'declaration' that his lawyer wrote which jordan signed and some leaked psychiatrist report which came out around the time of the bashir interview in The only fact that needs to be known is that the detailed description of mj's penis jordan gave to police was wrong.

MJ wasn't circumcised, jordan said he was. End of story, you can't have a 'disturbing relationship' if you don't know that vital bit of info. All that's been said about that 'match' between photos and jordan's description is the spectacularly vague claim that some vitiligo blotch was in the same relative area on the penis - and that is all down to the santa barbara district attorney, sneddon's judgement the only person to have seen both photos and descr - the same judgement that believed the claim that the arvizos made about mj kidnapping them in a hot air balloon to take them to brazil.

And as for the claim that mj died a virgin. How many times must a stroppy lmp insist she and mj had sex. If there was ever a need for a celeb sex tape this might be it. Gee Morinen I see from Page 2 that you are being swayed by stories coming out of that book. It may be good to read up a lot of background on Michael's associations with Schaffel, Thome, Barak, Weisner, etc. In fact, for any name mentioned in that book, you should look up the background. Most of the information you need is in this forum in the archives anyway. We have threads on all this. By the way have you read Jones' book?

This is a time when people have to take a stance. It is not time to be swaying in the middle--sort of reminds me of Michael's "friends"--they never took a firm stance and backed him, except Chris and Elizabeth. How does Sullivan know Michael died a virgin? How do they know overspending caused him to be in debt? He spent according to the money he made.

Looking back I am glad that he did have those acquisition loans, because what he bought are now part of his estate and are making millions. This book is trash and should be treated as trash. I cannot see why anyone would try to defend anything in this book. This book really shows the "mind" of the author, and that is a very scary thing. I am upset that he dared to mention TMez name in this book as though to give the book credibility. Today, while I was in someone's home, someone said "oh Michael is on the news.

The story will come on at 3pm. I have not looked, and I refuse to do so. Trash gets a lot of exposure. The sad thing is we are all talking about Sullivan and nobody is talking about Lisa D Campbell's new book. The King of Pop darkest hour was a good book about the Chandler allegations. LOL Everyone needs to leave a 1 star review, fact checking the allegations now too. That's the only word I have to describe that crap. They print articles like that and then they are going to air Bad 25 on Thanksgiving?

I really hope people in general will see how this book is just garbage for once. I did read a lot on many of them, although I do forget details over time - Michael was involved in dozens of lawsuits, esp. I have to admit it's not the most interesting part of his life and bio for me, so over time details like those Shcaffel's comments from slip. But I also know people - German fans - who met Dieter Wiesner personally, for example, and say that he speaks highly of Michael. That when he was Michael's manager, he did bad things, but he did many good things too.

Again, I don't see people as black or white. I noticed many fans on this board tend to do so. Jones - you mean Bob Jones or Aphrodite Jones? Anyway, I read both. I didn't buy Bob Jones' book though - I accidentally saw it in the library. Not only he mentions it, but he interviewed him extensively for this book. Should I check Mr.

Mesereau's background too? Okay, maybe that's a bad joke. Actually under the circumstances I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that Mr. Mesereau granted him interviews. If not for him, Sullivan may have ended with very different conclusions about Michael's innocence which would have made the whole thing even worse.

And please no need to compare me with Michael's "friends" who didn't support him, that's absolutely uncalled for. Nowhere have I showed my lack of support for him. Wow, I didn't even know about it. She didn't promote it at all. Have you read it? I sounds like a full bio. Is it well-written? I read her "KOP's darkest hour", it was very factual, but, to be honest, not very engaging for a casual reader.

The sad thing is all the claims Sullivan makes about Michael, the allegations, his sexuality, and about him sleeping with dozen of boys will be believed. I really cannot believe the type of society we live in when someone could write such horrific lies without any facts, and get away with it?

Account Options

I would begin therapy and also say the kids at school were bullying me due to the books details. I would then have my lawyer sue for all the emotional harm caused by the rantings in the book.

Navigation menu

If anyone's interested, there was a segment about this book tonight on ABC's Niteline. I didn't watch it so I can't provide a summary. Has the Jackson family released a statement about this book since it came out? If there was ever a time that they needed to say something, now is the time. This book is being talked about everywhere. He is just repeating a lot of junk over the yrs and puttin it into a so called new book. Why are so many fascinated by this in the media?

I guess they love there own B. S work over the yrs and liked being talked about like Roger feldman clearly does. SMH And I'm also gettin pretty tired of passive fans. I'm cool that some want to buy Randell's crap book to warn the rest of the B. S in it and I hope as soon as u do u get ur money back!? But, I ain't cool with those who wanna buy because they believe they will find some truth in it. Keep on supporting books like these and that's all u get, then don't complain later when all they do is crap on MJs name!

By the way Shaffel did more then steal money from Michael T where he claims all these drugs MJ was allegedly on including Cocaine. He made those claims during the time he was suing MJ. And I'm not surprise at ABC by the way. But, the minute something negative comes out they jump right on it like the old days! They have no shame. It's all about the rating and money. Not truth! That is up to us. By the way thanks for the info on Lisa D Campbell's new book.

Now that is worth the money! Thanks for the info. I hope fans will rather buy this than Sullivan's book. If I have to choose between well-written but full of lies and not-so-well-written but true, I will take the latter any time. I'm simply fed up with lies and innuendo, no matter how well packaged and how much promoted. No, I didn't read but I am sure it's good.


Oh yeah? Tell that to LMP, you can't lie with your eyes and sublimal body language. Translation: "We are confused about MJ's sexuality so he must have been too. This is almost surreal. I wish someone who is good with words would once write an extensive analysis of why the media behaves the way they do when it comes to MJ. That people feel the need to create a whole alternative reality about him, instead of just accepting facts. I can't believe that people in still think he died as a virgin when we have lots of facts telling otherwise.

Why did Sullivan ignore what LMP said in favor of his theory that is not supported by anything? Why does the media ignore facts those don't fit into their preconcieved ideas? Maybe it's time to revise those preconcieved ideas in the face of evidence otherwise instead of desperately sticking to them, against facts. And when will people learn that an allegation is not equal to a fact? Just because Jordan or his family claimed something, doesn't make it a fact.

Perhaps Sullivan and the NY Times writer would be less "disturbed" by Jordan's allegations if they had not be so lazy and they would have actually examined the facts surrounding those false allegations Roger has more to say about Sullivan's book:D He seems to be hell bent of all the incorrect info in Sullivan's book, but funnily he didn't see anything wrong with his own articles that were incorrect. For example, Jackson hosted a Christmas in Bahrain for friends from the U. Frank Cascio never went to Bahrain.

He even said so in his book this year. Imagine someone writing a biography of Batman and only interviewing the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, and the Joker. The writer fails to speak to Robin, Alfred or Commissioner Gordon. Former lawyer Oxman was disbarred on July 6, , which Sullivan only mentions as an aside late in his book.

Randall Sullivan - Wikipedia

He needed him as a legit source. Apparently, Sullivan and Tohme became quite close. Then Sullivan turned around and used Sanders and his associate Sandy Ribera as sources. Sullivan even admits he gave Ribera a first draft of the book to comment on. What is going on here? These included that he was a doctor of some kind, and a special ambassador to Senegal. Contact Us About. Galleries Cartoons. Taste of Soul Buy Cookbook.

Celebration of Life. Daily Briefs. District Attorney News. Antonio Moore. Ardena Clark. Charlene Crowell. Ben Chavis. Firpo W. Jeanette Parker. Maulana Karenga. Jasmyne Cannick. Julianne Malveaux. Larry Aubry. Marc Morial. Reggie Jones-Sawyer. Jesse Jackson.