True Crime with Aphrodite Jones investigates real crimes on Investigative Disconvery

das kam letztens ein paar mal auf n-tv unter dem titel "die akte michael jackson".

Zitat von Visionary

das kam letztens ein paar mal auf n-tv unter dem titel "die akte michael jackson".

:idee..genau..das dachte ich beim anspielen jetzt auch..ist identisch mit "Die Akte MJ"..war kurz :verwirrt..weil ich das schon kannte, jetzt weiss ich woher..

Ich werde es mir morgen in Ruhe anhören .....

80 min - da braucht man Zeit für - also am Wochenende

..joa..so gehts mir auch..muss das in Ruhe anhören...:tatort

..hab jetzt mal reingehört ..und ja..es kostet Zeit :schwitz..und manches hab ich net verstanden im Zusammenhang...deshalb hier mal ein "review" einer userin aus dem Mj.forever..die etwas Licht ins Dunkel bringt..so im großen und ganzen hab ichs auch verstanden..:

..hier die Aussagen von Aphrodite etwas genauer:

..sie bestätigt zuerst nochmal, was sie in ihrem Buch schrieb (Conspiracy) – was wie sie sagt, jetzt in fast allen Spachen rund um die Welt erhältlich sei... und bekräftigt nochmal, dass Michael unschuldig war und das aufgrund allem, was sie und die Jury in dem Gerichtssaal gesehen und gehört hat, dieses eindeutig so war.

Sie sagt dann: dass es Leute gebe, die aber immer noch glauben,dass MJ ein Pädophiler war, aber noch nicht mal bereit seien, das Buch zu lesen, oder Interesse daran hätten, wirklich herauszufinden, wer MJ war – und dass sie auch nicht behaupte, sie wisse zu 100% alles über Michaels Leben und alles was er tat – zu Jordan Chandler zB hätte sie ihre eigenen Fragen (etwa bei 26:00 im audio) - aber sie glaubt, ohne den geringsten Schatten eines Zweifels, dass der Prozess von St. Maria eine Heimzahlung für das war, was nicht passierte, als die Ankläger hinter Michael im Fall Chandler her waren – und es stattdessen ein Settlement gab, und dieser Prozess in St.Maria war ein Ergebnis davon, dass MJ den Menschen zeigen wollte, was er sein Leben lang für Kinder getan hat. Martin Bashit hätte ihn glauben lassen, dass er den Menschen zeigen könne, wie er Kindern half – er wollte nur, dass die Welt wisse, dass er ein guter Mensch war. - Und das war er – und alles kommt darauf zurück, wie Bashir und diese Familie in der Lage waren, das zu verdrehen und zu einer weiteren Anklage zu machen.

Ab 28:00 fragt jemand, wie sie das mit Jordy meint. Ob sie da Zweifel hätte...
und sie sagt: ja, weil sie die Aussage von Jordys Mutter June im Gerichtssaal gehört habe, die aussagte, wie Michael mit Jordy im Hotelzimmer bleiben wollte, wie er geweint habe etc... und es fühlte sich für sie an, als sei Michael „in Love with that boy“ - ob oder ob da nicht mehr daran gewesen sei – was wir niemals wissen werden, aber was seine Mutter aussagte, und was ich zwischen den Zeilen las, lies sie sich sehr „beunruhigt fühlen“.
Sie wird noch gefragt, ob sie ausser, dass es sie „sich unwohl fühlen lies“ noch andere Gründe für ihre Fragen habe. Und sie antwortet: das ist ein (huge) großer/gewichtiger Grund....

Gefragt, ob das nun bedeute, dass sie wirklich glaube, dass Michael irgendetwas tat: Nein, das bedeutet es nicht, sie weiß es einfach nicht. Sie will nur sagen, dass sie durch June Chandlers Aussage aufgerüttelt war...

Sie sei nicht da, um darüber zu diskutieren, wass 1993 passiert sei – Michael sei tot – und niemand wird je wissen, was passierte. Aber sie ist 100% sicher, dass er 2005 in all den Anklagepunkten komplett unschuldig war. Und das sei in dem einzigen Prozess gewesen, den er je hatte – weil die Leute immer denken, er hätte 2 Prozesse gehabt, aber er hatte nur diesen einen, 2005 in St. Maria – und dieser sei nur aufgezogen gewesen von Leuten, die hinter Geld her waren. Das könne sie beschwören, weil sie dort war und über 5 Monate alles mit angehört habe.

Sie wird gefragt, ob sie auch glaube, dass er bei Jason Francia unschuldig war..
Sie sagt, sie glaube keiner dieser Aussagen der anderen Jungen, die angeblich berührt, gekitzelt oder was immer seien -

ab etwa 30:00
Zu Robson: es gäbe da „Stimmen von kleinen Vögeln“ die ihr in die Ohren geflüstert hätten, dass Robson beeinflusst sein könne von Kräften wie z.B. AEG... als eine Möglichkeit, eine Company, die einen Grund haben könnte, den Namen von MJ in den Dreck zu ziehen, - sie kann nicht sagen, ob das was Wahres dran ist, aber das Timing sei seltsam... genau wenn der Prozess von AEG von statten geht, und Katherine sie beschuldigte, genau da kommt Robson, dessen Karriere einen Stillstand hatte, und der sicher Geld braucht, plötzlich mit Vorwürfen. Er war der Starzeuge der Verteidigung (2005) und sie fand dieses Timing sehr seltsam.

Bei 35:00 wird sie gefragt, wie sie Robsons Aussage damals empfunden habe:
Er sei unnachgiebig/standfest gewesen, bei seiner Aussage, dass bei ihm nichts passiert sei. Aber sie sagt auch, sie habe seine Aussager nocheinmal gelesen, als er mit diesen neuen Vorwürfen kam, und als sie es noch mal las – und zwischen den Zeilen las – dachte sie, er könne sich möglicher Weise zu standfest verhalten haben – aber das bedeute ein analysieren oder überanalysieren – aber von aussen betrachtet war er standfest und das liest man aus seiner Aussage heraus, und das war auch, was sie im Gerichtssaal so gesehen habe. Also das einzige , wenn man da etwas anderes rauslesen wolle sei, dass sie dachte, er ist fast zu standfest...und zu schnell damit, nein zu sagen..
Später sagt sie noch, dass sie denkt, es geht bei Robson ganz klar nur um Geld – so wie den Arvizos – und das er deshalb jetzt damit komme und das Estate um Geld verklage.
Sie denke, dass solange Michael lebte, habe Robson immer gehofft, irgendwie mit ihm/durch ihn Geld zu verdienen (also mit Projekten, die direkt oder indirekt mit ihm zu tun haben) und das fiel nach Michaels Tod plötzlich weg und er realisierte das irgendwann (in sofern, dass er mit solchen Dingen keine Einnahmen mehr hatte) und dann kamen plötzlich diese Vorwürfe. Er realisierte, dass sein Ticket „zur Stratosphäre“ für immer abgelaufen sei.

gegen Ende (etwa in den letzten 15 Min.) kommt sie nochmal kurz auf das Jordy Thema... und sie sagt dass für sie - ganz persönlich - wenn irgendwas, Michael eher asexell war - aber es sei nur ihre ganz alleinige Meinung - und dass sie einfach nur zu Jordy und er Sache von 1993 ein Fragezeichen hat - aber dass sie im Prozess von 2005 völlig sicher sei, dass er absolut unschuldig war.

....
Jones sagt auch noch mehr zum Robson Fall. Sie sagt, sie habe Kopien aller handschriftlicher Briefe/Einträge ins Neverland Guestbook, der Familie Robson, in denen sie auch immerzu betonen, wie sehr sie Michel lieben und schätzen.
Ausserdem sagt sie noch (ab etwa 58:00), dass sie aufgrund all ihrer vielen Gespräche und Interviews mit Tom Mesereau sagen könne, dass er niemals auch nur den geringsten Zweifel geäussert habe, dass Michael in irgendeiner Form jemals einem Kind etwas angetan hätte. Er wäre 100% von Michaels Unschuld überzeugt. Er hätte niemals auch nur andeutungsweise geäussert, dass es irgendein Kind gebe, über das er (Tom) vlt. doch verwirrt/besorgt war. Niemals. Und sie sagt, so wie sie Tom Mez kennt – (er sei sehr clever) – weiß sie, falls er auch nur denken würde, dass da irgendwetwas passiert sei, hätte er es herausgefunden und auch ihr gegenüber durchblicken lassen, dass es möglicher Weise etwas zu verheimlichen gäbe. Aber „er war immer nicht weniger als felsenfest davon überzeugt, dass Michael komplett unschuldig ist.“ Und dieses, sein überzeugtes Verhalten, spreche für sie Bände, da Tom ein sehr integerer Mensch sei, so wie sie ihn kennt. Und sie kann nur sagen, dass er so über Michael denkt, bis heute, und dass er auch wenn er Michaels Grab besuche immer genau wisse, dass er für Michael das richtige getan habe.

...und Mesereau hat auch wirklich nie durchblicken lassen, dass am Verhältnis Michaels zu Jordy etwas zu bezweifeln habe, oder? Er war doch sogar bereit, falls das im 2005 Prozess zum Thema geworden wäre, dazu Zeugen zu befragen, die er wohl schon bereit hatte. Mesereau wird sich sicher auch ausgiebig mit den Vorwürfen von '93 befasst haben, und er war sich anscheinend auch da sicher, dass Michael unschuldig war. Worauf stützt A. Jones plötzlich ihre Zweifel? Weder in ihrem Buch ist soetwas zu erkennen, noch wird sie solches von Tom Mez gehört haben, dessen Meinung und Überzeugung von Michaels völliger Unschuld sie doch für sehr gewichtig und 100% aufrichtig hält.
Und für mich ist es nicht nachvollziehbar, 100% von Michaels Unschuld im Fall von Arvizo – und auch Robson – überzeugt zu sein, und dann an der Jordy Sache zu zweifeln. Ich sehe Michael als komplett unschuldig, ich bin sicher, dass er niemals einem Kind etwas angetan hat, ich sehe mir doch dabei nicht einzelne „Fälle“ an, und sage, ja,, hier in dem Fall war er unschuldig und ich weiß auch, er ist nicht pädophil“ und in einem anderen Fall habe ich daran plötzlich irgendwelche Zweifel. Für mich geht es da nicht um einzelne Fälle, sondern darum dass Michael IMMER UNSCHULDIG war b.z.w. niemals in der Lage gewesen ist, so etwas zu tun, weil es ihm und seinem Denken und seinem wirklichen Verhältnis zu Kindern entspricht. Für mich ist der Prozess und das UNSCHULDIG Urteil nicht der Hauptbeweis, den ich dazu brauche, das zu glauben, sondern nur die Bestätigung für das, was ich schon weiß, was ich über Michael als Mensch gelernt und erfahren habe, und wodurch ich überzeugt bin, dass er niemals zu irgendeinem Kind ein Verhältnis hatte, was in irgendeiner Form „anrüchig“ oder auch nur „zweifelhaft“ war.....

..in dem link ist nochmal das genauere transcript des Interviews ab 0:26 – die Teile, wo es um Jordy und Robson geht...[/I]
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rr74et

MY THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT APHRODITE JONES INTERVIEW:

How do I start this? As many of you know, I interviewed Aphrodite Jones back in 2009 shortly after Michael Jackson passed. I interviewed her about the book she wrote “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, where she spoke about having a change of heart. She was a Fox News reporter who was covering the trial and thought that, along with the majority of the media covering the trial, that Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation.

After the trial and after thinking about all that she had seen and heard, she decided to delve into the case deeper and did her own research, accessing the court documents and records so that she could ascertain for herself, what the truth was. She had admitted to her jaw hitting the floor initially, along with the rest of the media, when all 14 NOT GUILTY verdicts came out.

Fast forward to an interview done last night on the King Jordan radio show (November 5th, 2013) and some of what I heard her say on that show, I have to say, I am in disbelief about. I honestly could not believe some of what I was hearing.

Early this morning, I had friends on FB sending me the link to this interview, upset over what had been said. I try never to jump to conclusions and always try to listen for myself so I can verify and in this case, I can fully understand the upset.

First, I am going to share with you the portions of the interview that are particularly disturbing in what Aphrodite Jones says, and, in how she says it. The portion of the interview where she is speaking about this very subject.. Then I will share my thoughts on all of this and the “why’s”.

This transcription starts just a little before 26:00 into the interview.

Aphrodite Jones on the King Jordan Radio show: “But now, I will say, for people who argue that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and don’t want to even read the book or think about who Michael Jackson was, I will say, I am not willing, as the author of the book that I wrote, to say, I, 100% know anything about Michael’s Jackson’s life to say what, if what he did, for instance, to Jordy Chandler….I have my own questions there.

But I do believe without a shadow of a doubt, that the trial in Santa Maria was a payback for what didn’t happen when the prosecution wanted to go after Michael Jackson about Jordy Chandler, and instead there was a settlement and that the trial that happened in Santa Maria was an outcoming from Michael trying to do damage control and show people all he had done in the rest of his life is help his own children and other children and he wanted….and Martin Bashir got him to believe that he would be able to show the world what he was doing to help children. He wanted the world to know he was a good person, which he was, and it all backfired on him because somehow Bashir and the people, the grifters, were able to twist this into another allegations charge and trial and I believe that the whole situation ended up killing Michael because it killed his spirit, he left the United States and he was a nomad for so many years after that and he, on top of the drugs he used and the state he was in, he just had nowhere to live and nowhere to be. Very sad.

At this point, the show takes a caller, who asks why Aphrodite has these questions about the 1993 allegations, to which she answers….

Aphrodite Jones: Do I have doubts about the innocence in 1993? YES. I do. Why? Why….because I watched the testimony of June Chandler in the court in Santa Maria, Jordy Chandler’s mother, and was, how shall I put it? Ummmmm…unnerved by what she was saying. She was talking about Michael staying in the hotel room with Jordy, Michael sleeping over at her house with Jordy, about Michael crying if he couldn’t stay in the same room with Jordy. This is all part of testimony at the trial. It was very unnerving and I felt like he was in love with that boy and whether or not there was any more to it, obviously we’ll never know, but everything that his mother was testifying to, when I was reading between the lines, made me very uneasy.”

As a real quick aside to what Aphrodite says here, this is part of what she shared in her very own book, about the testimony of June Chandler, the same woman she refers to above whose testimony she now recalls, made her very uneasy.

Quoting from AJ's own book:

"As the beautiful Ms. Chandler left the stand, many of the jurors seemed unimpressed. From the looks on their faces, it was obvious that June Chandler had not been a good witness. The females on the jury, in particular, seemed to see right through her."

Many thanks to Julia Berkowitz for this quote.

I will continue now with more of what Aphrodite said in this interview continuing from the point we left off above….

The caller then asks Aphrodite that other than being uncomfortable, did she have any other reasons for having doubts? Her answer…

“That’s a HUGE reason hunny bunny. There couldn’t be a bigger reason. I sat inches away, feet away from Jordy Chandler’s mother and watched her testify for hours and hours and everything about her made me feel like she was a woman who was looking the other way. Everything about what she said.

(Personally, I felt the way she answered this caller, saying "hunny bunny" was very disrespectful and degrading to the question being asked).

Aphrodite continues her answer....Now, does that mean that I think that Michael really did anything? I don’t know. That’s all I’m saying. But I’m not willing to say he didn’t do that nor that I feel he did because I don’t know, but I will say I was shaken by June Chandler’s testimony.

The caller then asks if Aphrodite has read Geraldine Hughes’ book “Redemption” or a book by Mary Campbell. Aphrodite interrupts with the following.

“I have met Geraldine Hughes many times, I have those books. I’m aware of them, but again, I’m not here to debate what happened in 1993. Michael is dead. I don’t really know what happened. None of us I don’t think will ever know what happened. I think that will die with Jordy and his father who killed himself and the rest of that family, who do or do not know anything. I don’t know.

But I will say again only this. I am adamant that Michael Jackson is innocent, innocent, innocent of any and all charges in 2005 in Santa Maria, the only trial he ever faced. People are confused and think that Michael Jackson faced 2 trials. No. He never faced any other trial. He faced one trial in his life and that was in 2005 in Santa Maria and that was a trumped up garbage trial with vagabonds who were out for blood and blood money and Michael was only there to help these people and that is the absolute truth. Now anything beyond that I can’t swear to, but I can swear to that because I sat there and listened to it for 5 months.”

Caller then asks if she believes I Michael was innocent in the case of Jason Francia because he also testified?

Aphrodite Jones: “I think that all the boys who testified, I didn’t believe any of them who were allegedly tickled or touched or whatever or traumatized by Michael, that I did not believe them.”

(What personally disturbs me up to this point is that she states unbelief about all of these witnesses to molestation and yet is saying that since she wasn't there with Jordy Chandler and Michael, that she can't claim his 100% innocence, yet claims it for this trial. What this will come across to the public is...well, if he did it in 1993, maybe he was guilty in 2005 or with Wade Robeson, etc.)

Another caller calls in to ask her about the Wade Robson allegations and what her thoughts were on this as Wade was the star witness of the 2005 trial and had testified that Michael did not do anything to him and earlier this year, suddenly comes out with allegations saying he was abused.

Aphrodite Jones answers: “Yeah, well, there are some very interesting little birds that have been speaking into my ears about the possibilities that Mr. Robeson may have been influenced by the powers that, like AEG for instance as one possibility, some company who might have had a reason to dirty up or smear the name of Michael Jackson. In the midst of other litigation. I can’t say there’s any truth to it, but I think that the timing is curious that just as the trial of AEG is raging on and Katherine Jackson is suing them for having hired Conrad Murray, all of a sudden at the same time, Wade Robeson, who has a career that has come to a stall and who needs money is suddenly out with claims of molestation when he was the star witness for the defense. I find that extremely odd timing and wonder about what I’ve heard from various sources as to why that timing. Why now?

He was adamant that nothing had happened to him, but I will say, I re-read his testimony because when he first came out with those new allegations, I’m looking at his testimony and reading between the lines, part of me felt like he was maybe being TOO ADAMANT…that maybe there was something to what he was saying later, but that’s going inside he envelope you know what I mean? It’s reaching so far, it’s over-analyzing it to the point that I don’t know what to do with that. But on the surface, he was adamant that nothing happened and that is clear in the testimony that I read and in what I saw in court.

So the only way to say is maybe there’s a glitch there is to say at some point as I was re-reading the testimony more recently this year, I thought….’WOW, he’s almost TOO adamant, like he’s TOO quick to say no.”

Host laughs.

Aphrodite resumes answering: “Really, that’s what occurred to me. I thought, ‘Gee, you know, maybe he’s….there have been allegations that he was on the payroll. He had been given some jobs to do in the videos with Michael and he was trying to be in the Cirque du Soleil production with Michael Jackson, so that when that fell through, he came through with these allegations, so that’s another reason as to why these allegations came forward now.

Whatever the case may be, clearly he somehow was riding a wave. As long as Michael was alive, he felt he had the potential to, you know, do another video, be in something, ride Michael’s coat tails. Once Michael died, now he had nowhere to turn, especially when he didn’t make it into the Cirque du Soleil production. So that is another issue, a BIG issue, with the whole Wade Robeson revelations.

The caller asks why Michael would molest Wade when he claims he was being molested during the early 90’s, which is when Michael was being investigated heavily for the Jordy Chandler case. Aphrodite now answers this.

Aphrodite Jones: “I agree with you. I feel that the Wade Robeson allegations stink to high heaven. I just think that it’s all about the money right now. He’s grasping at straws, he’s desperate because he’s lost his lifeline to the Jackson money and that’s why he’s daring to go after the estate. Is he KIDDING?”

Look, here’s the thing. At the end of the day, it’s expensive to live no matter what your circumstances (this is in answer to the caller asking about Wade’s motives and how there are rumors that Wade’s son is autistic and the caller states that care for an autistic child is expensive). For all of us, life’s a struggle, especially though when you are a young star like Wade Robeson who was picked up by a superstar and made into a mini star. Okay? And enjoyed the luxuries of that lifestyle at a young age. You don’t ever forget that and you spend the rest of your life….that’s why child stars often end up extinguishing themselves or unable to grapple with adulthood because they don’t know what to do. They can never live up to what they had.”

The interview continues on for another good 40 some minutes, which I did not yet listen to.

But I think just from what has been said in this portion of the interview, is enough for me to share my thoughts and why I find what was said, particularly disturbing.

First, let’s go with some of what Aphrodite shared with me in 2009, in regards to Michael’s guilt or innocence:

DK: When you covered that trial, you had initially thought that Michael was guilty.

AJ: Right.

DK: What initially made you and others in the media feel he was guilty? Was it just overall, kind of the way he’s always been portrayed?

AJ: No, no. For me, there were 2 things. Number one was I think the obvious that everybody considers, which is the Jordie Chandler settlement. For me to think that anybody would settle if they were really innocent at the time, especially for that amount of money, I felt like, there had to be something there, and I actually spoke to other people in the media about it. They were kind of in agreement with me, that, you know, there had to be something there. There was one person who was an African American journalist and she said to me, “I think there was something back then, I don’t think there’s anything there now.” But she was the only one at the time who stood out in the crowd to kind of defend Michael and, at the time, I was kind of still of the opinion of, well, all I could see was guilt. I wasn’t looking for anything but guilt. Even though she said that to me and I kind of acknowledged in my mind, “mmm hmmm, I see, I get where you’re going, but I’m not agreeing.”

The reason I wasn’t agreeing is because I just overwhelmingly felt at the time .... I was basically being led by people like Diane Dimond who did a very good job of selling the story, if you will, from 1993 and onward through Court TV and elsewhere, Hard Copy and what not, that this was Michael Jackson. He was this horrible, sinister person. That she had uncovered the truth. It was Diane Dimond and then Nancy Grace who kind of followed Diane Dimond, along with that mentality, and I was kind of looking for only what made him look guilty.

And Aphrodite had this to say about Michael…

"He was a really classy person. Really eloquent. Really elegant. Always stood up for the jury, always put his hands together sort of in prayer or homage, like begging the media "please, don’t hurt me" and being respectful of everyone there."

Aphrodite Jones

A lot of the issues I have with what Aphrodite Jones says in this interview have to do with not only what was said, but in the way, manner and tone in which it was said. When she refers to the 1993 case and how nobody will ever know what really happened…she says “Michael is dead” and to me, the way it is said, is really cold. Also, the way in which she answers at times, at least to me, comes across in a less than kind or considerate way.

Secondly, she goes against what she says in her own book about June Chandler’s testimony in that everybody could see right through it, to now saying that June Chandler’s testimony was very unsettling to her. Why the change now?

There is also a flitting back and forth between opinions held that completely contradict one another. She says that she thinks Wade may have been TOO adamant and too quick to say nothing happened in 2005 in the courtroom when she goes back to read the testimony now and that there were allegations that Wade was "on the payroll" possibly insinuating he had a reason to lie? and then claims that Wade’s accusations stink to high heaven? Which is it?

Putting any doubt in the minds of the public, at this point, when time and time again Michael’s innocence has been proven, not only through intense research but also via so many of those who truly knew this man, for greater than 10-25 years, is irresponsible. These are people who traveled with him, lived with him at times, worked with him and spent huge amounts of time with him, like David Nordahl, who has shared time and time again how he and his wife lived at Neverland for weeks at a time and traveled on vacations with Michael and saw him interact in all situations and David has stated unequivocally to me and to others, over and over again, how Michael was incapable of hurting a child. David's account of Michael, as well as many others I have spoken to, clearly shows Michael's true character. That alone speaks for itself.

While it may simply be Aphrodite sharing her own thoughts at this point in time, I have begun to feel very uncertain about the “why’s” of all of these sudden changes of heart or sharing of negative information that may attract negative attention about Michael Jackson.

I am truly disappointed in what was said. Angry. Upset. The fact that an insinuation of Michael’s potential guilt could be put out there by someone who has been selling books on Michael’s innocence in the 2005 trial for many years now, is unthinkable to me.

As Aphrodite herself alludes to in this interview, at some point, a realization comes over that Michael is really dead. It is my thought that, therefore, there is anger, greed, the desire and dream to achieve one’s own fame via Michael’s name or stardom diminishes as time goes on, negative news sells, questioning Michael Jackson’s innocence is once again the “hot” thing to do, and this leads to so many now, turning against him or saying things that create a question in the minds of the public, over the COMPLETE innocence of this man.

As Aphrodite herself said to me in the interview I did with her in 2009:

"That headline has to sell. They are going to put whatever they can on newspapers that’s going to grab attention. Clearly what was grabbing everybody’s attention was not that this man has been a target, but rather, that now they finally had “caught him”. That’s what was selling and that’s what people were buying, and I was one of the biggest buyers of it."

Aphrodite Jones

Link to interview:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/j…turns-to-kingjordan-radio

Link to my interview with Aphrodite Jones in 2009 on the Reflections on the Dance website: http://www.reflectionsonthedan…rview-with-Aphrodite.html

Immerhin hat sie eine nette Lache.
Ich fand ihre Aussagen jetzt aber auch nicht so dramatisch.