Was Michael Jackson Framed? by Mary A. Fischer GQ magazine

Originally posted by toochaos4u
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

Haha! Oh no I have found another man with "Peter Pan Syndrome"!
Do you wear bear and snowflake jammies?
Make sure you distort your face and paint it up like the joker as that is a sure sign you are innocent!

www.kissrocks.net...
Yes, these jokers are all innocent.

Wow.....a LOT of emotion in this thread. Just wanted to throw my own 2cents in the ring: I am and have been of the opinion that it's possible that
he was asexual. His body language, at least to me, never appeared to be that of a sexually active man....straight or gay. Most opinions are "either-or" he was straight, gay, guilty, innocent, etc. I think its possible there's an alternative, like maybe he was niether straight or gay and he was innocent.

reply to post by toochaos4u


Thanks for that post! More often than not a duck is a duck.

The only conspiracy that seems to be surrounding the guy is the one of self denial within the music biz. His sexual proclivities were the subject of speculation and rumour, within the biz itself, long before the media printed anything..

Jack o was an expert at manipulating the media, from the fake *little boy voice*, he most certainly did not talk like that in private to the whole *oh woe is me i had a terrible childhood*, story, which remember, even his own siblings said was exaggerated out of all proportion...

The truth is MJ had exhausted the good will of just about all his, once close colleagues, in the music biz because of his manipulative ways and his constant refusal to ever sign a contract over so many thing.s Note how he was attended by a doctor on contract from AEG, it would seem, the man didn't even have his own personal physician, despite his wealth. That alone gives you some insight into the guy's psyche...

The whole *little boy lost* , was an act, an act that allowed him to get away with behaviour, that anyone else would have been in deep trouble for many years ago.

if people are claiming that the evidence against the guy, was fabricated., that is fair enough. However that means you then have to show that ,for instance,. He had no secret room in his bedroom containing a shrine to a young Macauley Culkin and other material associated with an unhealthy interest in young boys. That he did not actually own an adult rabbit costume with the crotch cut out..

I can't believe people cannot see that those exhibits alone would set the alarm bells ringing with anyone with half a brain , as to the guys sexual leanings...

I believe that, MJ encapsuualted so much of the *American Dream* that many simply cannot let go of the fantasy of the guy to see the reality. it hurts too much as it seems to trash the very fibre of that dream if the guy , as it would seem to be , was, sexually, depraved in the way, the evidence suggests he was...

reply to post by toochaos4u
The first link you posted is broken and/or doesn’t exist.
If you find another working link please let me know, thanks.

As for your second link - let's take a look at it - and the quote you chose to include, more importantly the ones you didn't.
(Your quote)

His mother showing Michaels checks to his sister and then saying she I don't know if these children were apparently bought from the parents by Michael or not."

What a stretch that is. And coming (supposedly) a paper in Tel Aviv, Israel - and that article has never been reproduced.

It’s all more ‘let’s sell some tabloids’ hearsay.

If you read the article in it’s completion the whole of the Jackson family, including the mother, went to Michaels defense over these grounded in lies and hearsay accusations - the same mother who supposedly showed LaToya a check that she stated she didn’t know what the checks were for.

Members of the Jackson clan hastily held a news conference at their home in L.A. with father Joe saying that LaToya's charges are "ridiculous. It's a lie!"

The very article you post refutes the claims and then backs up the refutes with fact.

She told Couric that she had not personally seen her brother in bed with anyone and wasn't certain that the checks were actually ‘hush' money to the parents.

Mrs. Jackson added: "I wouldn't let anything like that go on in my home and she knows it. They're (LaToya and husband Jack Gordon) just jumping on the bandwagon. She is doing it for money, she and her so-called husband, Jack Gordon. That's how they make their money." She described Gordon as a "money-hungry mongrel."

Couric tried to press her about the large sums of money and Ms. Jackson said the sums were 'substantial' but she could not say with any degree of certainty what it was for.

(same link from your post)

The quotes in this article contradict themselves so many times I’m surprised the editor allowed the piece to be released.

Anyway, facts are, Michael, on a regular basis, helped out families, children in need (with cancer, health problems, families in need).

He even went to the extent of using vast amounts of cash and resources to buy a liver for and provide the finical backing to save a young mans life.

For him to post checks of large sums of money to families in need is proof only of his generosity, not, his failing.

The allegations made by the son of the maid?

...it is believed Mr Francia and his mother, Blanca, received a settlement of more than £1million from Jackson in 1994.

What kind of mother would take a settlement for 1Million dollars and not prosecute if the allegations are true?
Not one I’d believe.
Just more lies for cash.


Concerning Corey Feldman, why didn't you add the truth from Feldman’s own mouth on 20/20 - from the same article?

One example, Feldman said, was that Jackson had a book on his coffee table about "venereal diseases and the genitalia," (not pornography! The same kind of book you‘d see in science class!) which the singer would show him pictures in and "discuss what those meant."
"I was kind of grossed out by it," Feldman said. "I didn't think of it as a big deal.

Feldman stops short of accusing Jackson of molesting him, saying that he was never touched: "He never harmed me. And he never harmed any children in front of me."

Jackson, however, "never did anything out of line," Feldman told police detectives. "I mean, the closest he ever came to touching me was maybe slapping me on the leg once to talk about that I had lost weight.”

Feldman told "20/20" that he's defended Jackson "up and down" with both the public and the police. "I did what I believed was right as a friend," he said. " 'No, he's not gay. No, he's not a weirdo.' You don't understand the toll that it takes, having to be friends with somebody like Michael Jackson, because you spend your whole life defending [him]."

And Macaulay Culkin?

What about the truth came from his very own testimony?

Culkin had kept mum about his relationship with Jackson once the singer faced criminal charges, but he broke his silence in May during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," where he said his childhood sleepovers at Neverland had been innocent and that "nothing happened"

link

Michaels childhood abuse.

I’m not going to list the article after article, the first hand account from family members and grounded in fact accusations from Michael - along with the admissions by his Father - that Michael in deed was beaten and abused as a child on a repeated and ongoing basis.

When the father himself admits it - repeatedly - in my opinion - enough said.

One thing you might want to take into consideration also.
It’s a known fact the majority of child molesters were molested as a child and the numbers of repeating this behavior is said to be astronomical.

Though Michael was beaten as a child, he was not molested.

So one of the most important factor in your *check list of a pedophile* comes up a big fat negative.

Thank you for your post.

peace

[edit on 30-6-2009 by silo13]

Check this one out here

In David Icke forum there is a theory similar to mine backed up by Russian media. I think there are many unanswered questions at least.

That was a great thread. I never thought that MJ was guilty of any misconduct. I thought the same thing; that there would have been many more boys with a story if he was molesting children. I think people are cruel and sick and the second time he went to trial he was innocent also. He is wierd yes, but he never ment any harm. All he was doing was living through these thousands of children that he helped and people took advantage of that. Is he wierd? Yes!!!! But people used that against him and I think it played with his mind and eventaully lead to his death. Hopefully now he can rest in peace without the weight of a cruel world on his shoulders.

reply to post by FIFIGI

That article originated from the limp pen and barely lucid imagination of Sorcha Faal the most despicable notorious DIS-information producer on the internet.

Here’s the url: http://w w w dot whatdoesitmean dot com slash index1244.htm - but I refuse to *link* to this trash so if you're obund to go there you'll have to type out the link yourself, sorry.

And don’t be fooled by the picture on the site - it isn’t Michael.

Now how sick is that.

ANYWAY, lol, thanks for adding the post though... At least people will know what to watch out for and that’s all good!

thanks again
gracie


[edit on 30-6-2009 by silo13]

More stories are coming out about Michael, TMZ.com is reporting that none of those children are his,o.k. Debbie is not the mother of those first 2 kids. Now people are really going to get confused.

It wouldn't surprise me if Michael went into the witness protection program. There sure are alot of crazies out there.

When he went to the hospital that should have all been kept quiet but someone intentionaly linked that to the media.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by Katie]

reply to post by silo13


Since you pointed it out...

The article was written in the 1990's, that is why it's eerily familiar as I've already read it. My mistake wasn't looking at the date of the print. Hey I admit fault and man up that I didn't, especially when the article had claimed to shed new light on the subject. Given it was printed in the 90's, well, you get the point on how if it was printed today after my lack of checking the print date, my opinion would hold water.

Again, why are you dredging up articles of an old theory? Is it just to gain sympathy points to accept the behavior of a pedophile for those on the fence not convinced either way?

Feel free to continue attacking the person with the opinion, as you have danced around gingerly the profile of a pedophile as people have pointed out, unable to come to terms that Jackson indeed fit that profile.

As I've said before, the man's music can be celebrated. He was an extremely talented artist and dancer, and that cannot be denied.

However, the man was not a saint in his private life, nor should be be hoisted up on a pedestal. I find it highly insulting that a man who was accused of sexual misconduct multiple times, fit the profile of a child molester, paid off multiple families to hide the allegations more than once, went to trial in which he should have been convicted as the jurors admitted they didn't care about the child's testimony and couldn't see past the mother's welfare fraud and jackson's fame and money, had a multi million dollar amusement park/home tailored for grooming his subjects to gain confidence and trust, intoxicated children to lower inhibitions, admitted sleeping with boys naked is OK, practically treated the Arvizo boy like a lover and unable to keep his hands off him on TV, and had books of naked boys seized in 1993 is given such attention.

Jackson continuously and innocently make the same so-called mistake, starting with Jason Francia in 1987-1991 costing him $2,000,000. Then Jordan Chandler in 1993 costing him at least $20,000,000. Throughout time we got accusations from indirectly from security guards or directly with Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, Charlie Michaels, Charmayne Sternberg and finally the 2005 case with Gavin Arvizo in which Jackson STILL has not learned. That's nearly 20 years of innocently making the same 'mistake'. Bullocks. The first time should have been a wake up call, regardless of how innocent and pure children are (and that belief is ALSO is a part of the pedophile profile).

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. The man wasn't extorted, he wasn't misunderstood, nor was he innocently making the same 'mistake'. He was a rich pedophile with fame and fortune to manipulate opinion of him that enabled a history of perversion in plain site.

The evidence of his pedophilia are there plain as day for the past two decades. Take off the rose colored glasses of the man and look at him from the REAL world.

Sorry if you don't like what you see.

Originally posted by FireMoon
The only conspiracy that seems to be surrounding the guy is the one of self denial within the music biz. His sexual proclivities were the subject of speculation and rumour, within the biz itself, long before the media printed anything..

There were rumours that his song dirty diana was about diana ross, but again, I can't think of any other rumours really, except maybe that he did not date, and people thought he might not be straight.

Jack o was an expert at manipulating the media, from the fake *little boy voice*, he most certainly did not talk like that in private to the whole *oh woe is me i had a terrible childhood*, story, which remember, even his own siblings said was exaggerated out of all proportion...

What evidence do you have that the voice was fake, and that this was manipulation?

The truth is MJ had exhausted the good will of just about all his, once close colleagues, in the music biz because of his manipulative ways and his constant refusal to ever sign a contract over so many thing.s Note how he was attended by a doctor on contract from AEG, it would seem, the man didn't even have his own personal physician, despite his wealth. That alone gives you some insight into the guy's psyche...

The truth seems to be that he felt he had a conspriacy ongoing. I don't have the links right this second, but one article he said something about how people start off rich, with money, cars, etc, then they become penniless, and it's all a conspiracy. He seems to blame some specific people. He also apparently tried to have some people cursed, who he also blamed for his troubles. He also claimed that some of the law suits against him were not right, and I believe counter suied in one instance.

The whole *little boy lost* , was an act, an act that allowed him to get away with behaviour, that anyone else would have been in deep trouble for many years ago.

Either it was a boy act, or he really in many ways was still very boy like, and did not see the world the way others do, which is always very dangerous.

if people are claiming that the evidence against the guy, was fabricated., that is fair enough. However that means you then have to show that ,for instance,. He had no secret room in his bedroom containing a shrine to a young Macauley Culkin and other material associated with an unhealthy interest in young boys. That he did not actually own an adult rabbit costume with the crotch cut out..

Can you provide a link to the rabbit costume, I have never heard of this before? I could not find it on a quick google search. Also can you give or provide a link to the Macauley shrine? Was it a shrine, or soem pictures? When did he have this shrine?

Also to my knowledge Mccauley has never claimed Michael abused him, and this was a child that spent more time with Michael more than many others.

I can't believe people cannot see that those exhibits alone would set the alarm bells ringing with anyone with half a brain , as to the guys sexual leanings...

I have a fully functioning brain, and it does not send alarm bells, unless I know the full context in which the evidence is being presented, and get a chance to examine the evidence, and make a full assessment. You have made some claims, but I just want to look them over and examine them.

I believe that, MJ encapsuualted so much of the *American Dream* that many simply cannot let go of the fantasy of the guy to see the reality. it hurts too much as it seems to trash the very fibre of that dream if the guy , as it would seem to be , was, sexually, depraved in the way, the evidence suggests he was...

I think many just want the truth. I liked his songs, but was not a great fan or anything. I just want the truth. If he was not a pedophile, the world did him a great wrong and it must be fixed for the sake of his kids. If he was a pedophile, then the prise is wrong.

aboutmichaeljackson.com...

Jason Francia Cross-Examined at Michael Jackson Trial

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Lead Defence attorney Tom Mesereau cross-examined Jason Francia yesterday about his claims that he was molested by Michael Jackson fifteen years ago.

Mesereau concentrated on interviews given to investigators between 1993 and 2004, and implied that the investigators were pushing for him to say that he was molested although he initially denied the claims. "It was only after you were pushed real hard by the sheriffs that you began to say anything like that," Mesereau said. Francia claimed he could not remember, which would become a frequent answer during his cross-examination, much like when the Arvizo children were cross-examined at the start of the trial.

A segment from an interview Francia had with investigators was read out by Mesereau to refresh the witnesses' memory, "They made me come up with a lot more stuff. They kept pushing. I wanted to hit them in the head." Again, Francia claimed he could not remember, according to the Associated Press. The witness was still unable to remember when Mesereau showed him the transcript of the interview, "Do you remember anything you said in that interview?" the attorney asked, "No," Francia replied.

Francia was last week described as a problematic witness by Mesereau, and he certainly set out to be difficult for the attorney. When Mesereau was trying to point out inconsistencies with his statements, the witness answered, "I don't mean to sound like I'm wasting your time," he said. "It's hard being up here." "Just answer my question," said Mesereau.

Once the witness finished his testimony, the attorney that represented him and his Mother then took the stand. Kris Kallman claimed he reached a financial settlement with Michael's then attorneys in 1995 or 1996, following on from complaints made in 1994 according to the Santa Maria Times. Kallman said the settlement stated it was not an admission of guilt on Michael's part, and that he was only paying to protect his name and image.

This does not make me think that he molested this person, this article makes me think just the opposite. Just like the article the OP posted makes me think that he did not molest the first child, and I have never believed the third accusation. If there were other claims, or anything that was substanciated then I am not aware.

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Check this one out here

In David Icke forum there is a theory similar to mine backed up by Russian media. I think there are many unanswered questions at least.

I dig Icke and I'm a sucker for his theories. This however is a crock. Jackson was visibly thin, sickly and by my estimation anorexic for years. Eventually you pay the piper for poor health and habits without space-age weaponry being used on you. This is a case where I feel I can trust my intuition and Icke, if you've read or heard him, would be the first to tell you to do just that. Use your intuition. A stiff breeze would be a deadly weapon against this sickly person.

reply to post by Hemisphere

A stiff breeze would be a deadly weapon against this sickly person.

Agreed.
It wouldn’t have taken anything to push him over the edge.
And why?
Well - when I heard the rumor of his supposed autopsy (leaked) report - and it said he had no hair - I immediately thought - that's it - he gave up - he wanted out.

Suffering from body dimorphic syndrome as he was?
Ready to go on tour, with no hair?
And all the scars and the pre-death condition his body was already in?

He was done, tired, finished, used up and IMO wanted OUT.

It's looking to me, IMO, more and more like he just lost the spirit to live and just gave the hell up.

reply to post by Katie

Debbie is not the mother of those first 2 kids.

From what I understand of the article she is the mother - biologically - but Michael is not the biological father, she's saying it was donated sperm.

The confusion might have come in where she stated she didn't want to be a mother, she's a mother to her animals, and doesn't want the kids and never did.

I’d post the article but I’d rather wait until I can post an article that’s a bit more credible.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying with all the rumors floating around right now I’d like to wait on this one a bit.

Thanks

reply to post by silo13


I believe Michael Jackson chose to leave @ this time...because he was ready...tired of all the pain, drama, being fed on by vampirical entities..media, critics, fans, fellow beings who shared a common wound of abuse physical, emotional etc from an unhealthy father/dysfunctional family life who were unwilling to face and recover from their own experience and pain etc..Earth...believe it or not..is a free will zone..and he chose to leave..,

reply to post by calvinraveneagle

I believe Michael Jackson chose to leave @ this time...because he was ready...tired of all the pain, drama, being fed on by vampirical entities..media, critics, fans, fellow beings who shared a common wound of abuse physical, emotional etc from an unhealthy father/dysfunctional family life who were unwilling to face and recover from their own experience and pain etc..Earth...believe it or not..is a free will zone..and he chose to leave..,

Yes, I really believe so too.

I could go on and on with the theories on this or that but what you posted is what it all boils down to - for all of us.

You've all heard the stories of the people who beat all the odds of a terminal disease or injury - because they had the will and desire to fight.

If I may be so bold to presume, I think Michael's will to live was gone.

On the lighter side I like to think he’s hanging out with Charlie Chaplin or making new music with his father in law.

People repeat the same errors, again and again, on both sides.

Posting known features of *some* pedophiles that apply to Michael Jackson in no way proves that he engaged in the specific behaviors of which he was accused.

Posting known features of low-down scum-sucking, amoral conniving lawyers and other unethical people that the Father/Mother of the alleged victims shared in no way proves that the specific behaviors alleged *never* occurred.

Listening to the secretly-recorded tape of the Father, it sounded pretty clear that he was convinced he was going to be able to humiliate and destroy Jackson, and that he "would never sell another record."

I am not sure that I would be *that* convinced that the whole thing would not blow up in my face *unless* I had something more going for me than a pack of lies.

There is no question he was Extorting MJ...MJ charged him with extortion....extortion often involves *true* evidence that you are willing to pay to suppress. Yeah, he was a scumbag, but that does not prove that he did not have *real* information to use for extortion.

Lots of victims do not want to tell the whole story. Especially if they *like* the perpetrator (which happens all the time...it is often *society* which has to convince the child they have been victimized..."abuse" does not always feel that bad - at the time).

I think it is more likely that the Father knew there was stuff the child was suppressing and used Sodium Amytal to try to get the whole story. I do not believe that most people at the time would be sophisticated enough to know that you could *implant* false memories with the drug...after all, it was known as "the truth serum."

BTW, there are lots of parents who *would* try to make a fortune out of their child's molestation..."Why not?" they would say. The perpetrator merely going to jail is not going to make any great improvement to their lives...and, has everybody forgotten how easy it is for people to *beat* legitimate charges of rape and abuse? Happens all the time. The so-called Justice System often victimizes the *victims*...and makes their lives Hell.

I've worked in the "system" and seen it happen...families torn apart, defense attorneys allowed to embarrass and humiliate and put the victim on trial.

Look at what happened to the Mother in the 2005 trial....everything about her past was dragged up in an attempt to impeach her credibility. All is fair in love and war and the courtroom.

Fact: the testimony of the original victim from the 1993 case - as given to the Social Worker (not the Psychiatrist) would have been deadly, and could easily have resulted in a conviction.

If you are MJ, and cannot prove the child is lying, you are not going to risk being sent to Jail for years and having the conviction on record, and have to register as a Sex Offender everywhere you go.

Wake up. It is worth more than $20 Million to just make it go away by settling the civil case...whether you are guilty or innocent.

I want somebody to interview the "original" victim *now*...obviously he cannot "recant" if he lied....but, if I was abused as a child, and had a chance to testify against the guy in a future trial, I would definitely seize the chance to put the nail in the coffin of the guy who abused me.

Make up all the psychobabble excuses you want to for his continued silence...but he had *no* trouble charging his Father with assaulting him and being involved with publicly reported complaints in that regard.

But what would have happened to *him* if he *had* testified? Defense team would have had to turn his life inside out in order to try to destroy his credibility. Look at what a good job the Fischer article did....plenty to embarrass him about.

MJ was no angel, he had some very nasty people working for him.
He did some great things, and some stupid ones.
I'm a Psychologist, I have assessed Pedophiles.
MJ *could* have been one...it would fit.
We'll never know.

There are a few things that bother me when it comes to the was MJ framed questions. One of them being that people often assume that if the child's parents were trying to get money out of MJ then the child had to be in on it, then he had to be a liar as well. I don't see how if the parents selfishly took money for the wrong reasons that proves that their son was a liar or never molested. Parents in many situations do not act in their child's best interest.

Originally posted by rapunzel222
it is pretty abnormal for a paediphile to only have one victim, particularly with the number of kids michael had contact with. if he was a paediphile, there should be other kids coming forward, you would think - particularly as there is a lot of money to be had from criminal compensation claims.

??

Several people claim that MJ molested them, you probably just don't know about them because many did not ask for money or file charges, but some did testify during the molestation trial.

The Smoking Gun has several pages, such as this www.thesmokinggun.com... that discuss many of the things that led me to believe that Michael was a predator.

We'll never know for sure, neither I or anyone out there can just assume the man was guilty because no matter how many claims were presented he died a innocent man (in the legal sense of the word). But I think MJ's actions of specifically singling out boys that he was friends with or who stayed with him and admitting to sleeping, skinny dipping, and showering with them should send out more than a hundred red flags. All the signs of pedophilia and unhealthy compulsions were there.

Edit to add: I really feel for Chandler if he was a victim, the amount of sheer hatred shown toward him and his family must be an unfortunate example to any child who is molested by a powerful figure and considers coming forward. I certainly don't blame Chandler if his parents used him either.








[edit on 5-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

I am well aware of the original article by Ms. Fischer from GQ magazine, and while I appreciate it very much, I am actually even more grateful for the experience I gained from reading this thread so far: a lot of people will not let facts stand in the way of their tendency to accuse and hate. This thread is a great example of social engineering's achievements. Likes of Elisabeth Hasselhoff would be proud of accusers here.

Here are some questions:

- Since when is "fitting a profile" (a random one at that) the same as being guilty? How about not fitting the essential ingredient of a real pedofile profile: numerous other children?

- I admire the ability of some here to bring up irrelevant things: "who" wrote the article is more important then "WHAT" is discovered, right? By that rationale, if Pope or whatever authority you hold dear, said that he figured MJ was guilty, all discussion would have to stop as that would mean he indeed was guilty? All the facts in Ms. Fischer's article are easily proven.

- In what way is "sleeping with children" the same as being guilty of sexual molestation? Sleeping in the same bed with some kid, sometimes is NOT a punishable offence.

- And last but not least, which parts of these facts are unclear to the those who love to bash MJ as a pedophile:

a) The police NEVER found a single witness after spending millions of dollars and interviewing hundreds of people
b) That same police never spent a penny trying to find some proof that the whole case was a setup even thought the evidence was plentiful
c) "The criminal case against MJ was not brought up due to insufficient evidence" is not exactly true. Truth is - it was not brought up because there was NO evidence. None. Period.

Some say that MJ must've been guilty because he "settled" for $20 million. I admit, I too thought he settled. Until I saw this (please scroll to the bottom PDF document):

Insurance company settlement

In the above link anyone with ability to read and conclude on their own, can see that MJ NEVER SETTLED out of court. It was his insurance company that did it. "How so?" you ask?

Most of us ordinary mortals do not have to deal with issues such as wrong accusations and whatnot. So we usually do not buy insurance against those types of things. If a person is rich they are a likely target of frivolous lawsuits or accusations of any kind. There are many examples of that to be found.

When faced with an accusation there are two possibilities:

1. You have no insurance, fight in court and pay for all expenses yourself.
2. You rely on insurance that you bought as soon as you became rich and then the insurance company decides how best to end the whole thing. The insurance company doesn't care about your well-being or who is at fault, or your public image, but their bottom line. And if their accountants figure that it is cheaper to settle, then they will settle ON YOUR BEHALF.

If you have ever had your car "totalled" after a light fender-bender by your insurance company and it earned a "rebuilt title" as a result, then you know what I am talking about. This doesn't have to happen every time, only when it is cheaper then to do the right thing - repair a car or defend an innocent person in this case - Michael Jackson.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by number2379]