StillDirrty said:

But he was black. Did black people consider him white? I don't think so.

ElectricBlue said:

I think he suffered from arrested development, a part of him never mentally grew up.

This traces right down to his childhood that he never really had.
[Edited 8/13/09 21:31pm]

I went to a free Pat Benatar and Blondie concert in Coney Island tonight. Blondie ended the show with "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough."

funkteer said:

Unique said:

funkteer said:

In Jacko's childlike mind he was white. Not even a white normal skin tone is lily white! I read somewhere somebody said his skin glowed in the dark! I believe he was so high on drugs he didn't know how white he had bleached his skin.

BoOTyLiCioUs said:

Good God. Don't even give me that nonsense. How about lack of chemistry? Unbelievable and icky public displays of affection? Suspicious timing of the marriage? Just on and on....give me a break. I felt embarrassed for his sudden attempt to show PDA with that "they said it would never last" kiss. Like I said, I got the same feeling from them as I did from Liza and David. I really didn't find MJ believable with any of the women he had been linked with in the press or in his videos, Tatiana, Lisa Marie etc, although at one point I really hoped to. He seemed to have had dates or at least real curiosity about dating during the pre-Thriller days with Stephanie Mills, Tatum etc. He seemed to be like any other young man navigating his way through fame and love. But as time went on and his fame and isolation grew, something changed. Or maybe things were never as they appeared with Michael. Who knows...
[Edited 8/14/09 3:32am]

This had to be said? Oh please it has been said and tried in a court of law back in June 2005. That’s what matters, people’s ignorant opinions don’t. Wake up, its August 2009.

A jury for 6 whole months, every day, sat down and heard and saw every possible piece of evidence they could in the case against Michael Jackson. You and like most of the general public know 2% of what 99% of the jury knew. Your opinions are irrelevant. Everything you think you know has been provided from what the tabloids and the media have sold you. To sell you a story, they must generate your attention, so this involves scandalous headlines, bias reporting, pretty much sensationalism to an immense degree. Pretty much, lies.

The way the information was delivered to you was based on ratings and not justice. Sorry to break it to ya all.The fact that the case against Michael Jackson was the most expensive prosecution in history, yet they couldn’t find a shred of evidence against him, says enough.

A lot of the hateful comments in this thread are clearly based on jealousy from all the love Michael is receiving. Something Prince fans could only dream of in Prince’s life, little own in his death.And if you think for a second that any sane person would not convict a defendant they believed was guilty of being a paedophile, no matter who you are, you are hugely mistaken. And hugely in denial of the fact that there was no evidence against Michael, only evidence against the accusers – which proved them of grifters and con artists. The mother after Michael’s trial got charged with welfare fraud, lol.

Don’t think I’m denying Michael as eccentric either, like Prince he is. However being considered “strange” does not make you guilty.
I also find the posters here hilarious as they are posting articles as their proof, which come from the biggest tabloids in the world, particularly from the UK – they are the WORST, lol.

Put it this way, all the tax payers money and all the money that sleazy DA invested in convicting Michael Jackson (based on no evidence besides a collection of heterosexual porn, lol) could of put away hundreds of REAL paedophiles getting away with it every day! You guys I bet would never waste the same time it takes to bash Michael in this forum, at helping to try and stop real paedophiles.

Truth is, you only care to share an opinion when it comes to Michael Jackson. Because its an easy tool to use to bring him down and make him look like the monster you wish he was. Mostly due to jealousy.

There were two Michael Jackson’s in our lifetime. The one the media created and then the REAL one:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...annel_page

End of.
[Edited 8/14/09 6:16am]

funkteer said:

I consider him a self-hating black man. Just look at the shit he did, especially hiring a white surrogate mother and a white sperm donor to have his "kids". Dude was seriously fucked up.

uPtoWnNY said:

whether those kids are his biological kids or not, they are STILL NOT WHITE. BOTTOM LINE.

OldTeenager said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Blanket is not white. He's a lot darker than the other two.

Michael Jackson said many times that he was a Black man, proud to be a Black man, etc. etc. etc. Out of his own mouth. That is not what a person who is ashamed to be Black would do. Why lie? Plus you act like the man never wore a 'fro, cast black people as Egyptians in his video, didn't sing for Motown. Dang even the doctor he handpicked for himself that eventually killed him is a Black man. Doesn't seem like he had a phobia. His kids' nanny was Black! I mean seriously.....maybe some people need a reality check but it ain't Michael.

Damn. And people wonder why the man was always fed up with having to deal with people's ignorance over and over again. I'm tired of hearing the same stupid shyt too....

i think mj used kids as a shield to dealing with people...that's not a sexual thing.

I'm giving you a single shred of evidence.

No evidence from the prosecution side was produced (and the prosecution spent millions and millions), and according to court documents, the kids couldn't keep their story straight. They would contradict themselves on court. The kid even admitted he was lying.
Moreover, the mother, Janet Arvizo, had a history of trying to work the system to her benefit (she even robbed a charity institution...). I was fortunate enought to read courtroom transcripts and all I can say is not once did he ever have anything to worry about.
The majority of his 'accusers' (including MacCauly Culkin) found the allegations laughable and the only teen who cried abuse gave testimony that was RIDDICULED with innacuracies (even the jurors started giggling one time, during Jason Francia's testimony).

Many people will admit that they never even researched about the 2005 Child Molestation Case and still say that Michael Jackson is guilty. However, if they knew the facts, their opinion would be quite different. It was known that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was a thief and a very unbehaved young man. He had previously had many suspensions and detentions because of his behavior in school. George Lopez, the well know comedian, testified in court that young Gavin Arvizo had stole 40 dollars from his wallet in the previous months. He would give money to the family (who kept asking for more) and was accused of having stolen 300 dollars from the family by Janet.
Gavin Arvizo's mother, Janet Arvizo, was pending a fine for assaulting a security guard at a JCPenney's and stealing over $1,000,000 worth of merchandise from that store. As you can see, the accuser and the accuser's family were well known scammers.
So, how could you believe the story of the molestation, when Gavin Arvizo himself admitted, before the trial, to his teacher, that Michael Jackson never molested him?
The DA, Tom Sneddon, was really desperate to get Jackson. He flew to Australia ,at one point, in the mid-90s, to try and find an alleged victim. And the person said, "take a a hike, get out
of here."
The media's coverage of this case was awful. They never showed to the public the defence side and that's why everyone got surprised when Jackson was acquitted.
Without a shadow of a doubt Michael Jackson was innocent in this case and the accusers were just out for cash. They had conned celebrities, charities and police departments before, but their target in this case was not about to roll over as they expected. Now, seriously, you should read court transcripts!!! You will die laughing; Davelin Arvizo, sister of the accuser, "forgot" to mention Michael Jackson had given her alcohol back when she talked to the cops, but of course remembered MJ given her alcohol on the stand. The Who "would believe me?" excuse given by 4 prosecution witnesses as to why they never called the cops is laughable. Jason cries over his balls being tickled (perhaps he just cries because he would lose the 2.5 millions of dollars he got from "National Enquirer" to lie against Jackson?).

As I said, Janet Arvizo had previously sued JC Penney's for alleged assault and molestation. In which her sons Star and Gavin testified and were later proven to have lied on the stand. During Star Arvizo's testimony, he explained the molestation act that Michael had supposedly performed on Gavin Arvizo. While I will not go into details, I can tell you that it was a completely different story than Gavin told. Read court transcripts. One big flaw in the prosecutions case is the time line of events. Tom Sneddon claimed that the molestation occurred AFTER the airing of the Martin Bashir "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary. Sneddon claimed that after the airing of the documentary, Jackson's people did everything in their power, including forcing the Arvizo's to make a rebuttal video in which the Arvizo's claim that everything stated was coached by Jackson's team, however (here's where it gets interesting), according to Sneddon and Gavin Arvizo, the molestation occurred AFTER this series of events. If Michael Jackson was already being questioned by almost every news media outlet about his involvment in Gavin Arvizo's life after the Bashir airing, WHY would he molest the child during that time? Why would he put himself in that position when people are already questioning his actions? The time line makes no sense.

Lastly, not only did Gavin Arvizo's testimony greatly vary from his brother's, but it also varied from his own previous grand jury testimony in which he claimed that the molestation happened before he saw officials who were investigating Michael due to the Bashir documentary, while during the criminal trial Gavin claimed the molestation happened AFTER the officals investigated.


About the '93 accusations;


usnewslink.com/framedjackson.htm
[Edited 8/14/09 15:33pm]
[Edited 8/14/09 15:34pm]
[Edited 8/14/09 15:38pm]
[Edited 8/14/09 15:44pm]

suga10 said:

Blanket's mother is mexican...

Countthedays said:

Said who?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/c...-21590431/

Michael Jackson exclusive: Blanket Jackson's surrogate mother is a Mexican nurse named Helena

*
*

By Ryan Parry 12/08/2009
Blanket (pic: Getty)

The surrogate mother of Michael Jackson’s seven-year-old son Blanket is a Mexican nurse named Helena.

As several people come forward to claim parenthood over the King of Pop’s three children, the Mirror has discovered the truth behind the birth of his youngest.

Despite rumours about who fathered the boy, we can reveal Jackson is his biological dad.

Blanket, real name Prince Michael Jackson II, was born on February 21, 2002 at the Sharp Grossmont Hospital in La Mesa, near San Diego in Southern California.

Now it can be revealed his mother was a pretty latino nurse who Jackson personally selected. Jacko paid Helena a $20,000 surrogacy fee to have his child and lavished her with gifts, generous expenses and staff to see to her needs.

Her identity has been a secret since Blanket was born. On his birth certificate Michael Joseph Jackson is identified as the father but the line for “Name of Mother” is left blank.

The child was conceived through IVF. Jacko donated his sperm for the procedure.

An unknown woman, also chosen for her gene pool, was the egg donor – effectively making her Blanket’s biological mother.

The woman was paid a mere $3,500 for her contribution and signed legal papers handing over all rights to the child. Her identity is an even bigger secret within the Jackson family.

It is unlikely she was even told that her eggs were involved in Blanket’s birth.

A close friend of Jackson’s told the Mirror: “Michael wanted a designer baby. He had two wonderful children but wanted one more and was quite specific on the gene pool he wanted to tap into.” Jackson approached IVF specialist Dr Lila Schmidt at the beginning of 2001 when Prince was three and Paris was two.

It has been claimed that Debbie Rowe, the mother of the two eldest children, had medical complications following Paris’s birth which forced Jacko to look elsewhere for a mother.

Helena was one of a string of women presented to the star as possible surrogates. He reviewed several profiles which included photos, full background checks and family history.

Jacko decided on Helena, who lived on the outskirts of San Diego at the time, and after meeting her was convinced she was perfect.

The friend told the Mirror: “He chose Helena because she had a latino background but she was also a US citizen and had quite fair skin.

“He liked her because she was very attractive and seemed stable and intelligent. She was a nurse or medical assistant, which he also liked.

“She was around 5ft 4ins, slim, aged around 30 and had long, dark, straight hair. He said she was strait-laced, almost a girl next door type.

“There were no dramas with her. She knew what she had to do and got on with it.”

Despite Jacko’s careful selection over the surrogate mum, little of her genetic attributes will have been passed on to Blanket. Dr Schmidt, who is bound by confidentiality rules but can talk in general terms, said: “The surrogate is the carrier of the baby. The biological mom is the egg donor.

“The surrogate has no connection to the child. It’s not their kid. On the birth certificate you can say whoever you want. That’s why you hire anattorney. The birth certificate can say Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse but there might not be any genetic relationship to the child.”

While Jacko was keen for Helena to be well looked after, the friend said “He kept his distance. She didn’t have a chaperone or any kind of handler watching her every move or anything like that.”

The friend added that Helena agreed to the surrogacy because she needed the money to send back to her family in Mexico.

“She was a lovely person and told Michael the money would help her family out,” said the friend.

Advertisement - article continues below »

“Michael rang her a few times during the pregnancy to make sure everything was OK.

“He had a picture of Helena which he showed to close friends. But he never discussed whether he’d ever tell Blanket about his mom.”

Dr Maria Castillo is the medic who delivered Blanket and is named on the birth certificate.

She recalled the delivery at Grossmont hospital was a success but says Jackson was not present.

Dr Castillo said: “There was an attorney at the birth. He took the baby away immediately after delivery. I didn’t know who the baby belonged to when I delivered the child.

“I was later told by a nurse at Grossmont that the woman had named the baby Prince Michael Jackson, and I said wow, I guess they like their rock stars. Maybe she likes Prince and Michael Jackson or something.

“It never occurred to me it was Michael Jackson’s baby.”

Dr Schmidt added: “Michael Jackson wasn’t at the delivery but in order to get that kid out of the hospital there has to be a court order in place.”

It is believed the attorney then whisked the baby up to the star’s Neverland ranch.

The friend said: “Michael was thrilled. He was so excited and said Blanket was a good-looking kid. He had nurses and a nanny at the ranch to make sure the baby was cared for properly.

“But he was also a hands-on dad and didn’t mind changing diapers himself.”

TV producer Gary Pudney recalls that just days later, Jackson proudly introduced him to Blanket.

Pudney said: “Michael told me, ‘I have something to show you, Gary.’

“And he went in the back of the trailer into the little bedroom and brought out this little blanket that had something in it. And it was the baby.”

He added that Jackson never told him who Blanket’s mother was and he never asked.

Blanket was introduced to the world aged 11 months in Germany – immediately at the centre of a media storm after his superstar father dangled him perilously over a balcony rail at a hotel.

Over the years Jackson couldn’t keep his story straight about Helena’s identity.

He told Martin Bashir in the controversial 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson: “We have an agreement that we can’t talk about.

We have a contractual agreement, who she is and everything, that’s how we worked that out.”

Bashir asked if it was someone Jackson had had a relationship and the singer replied: “Yes.”

But in the same documentary Jackson completely contradicted himself, saying. “I used a surrogate mom, my own sperm cells. She doesn’t know me, I don’t know her.”

With his older brother and sister, Blanket, at least for now, is in the custody of Jackson’s mother Katherine, just as his father wanted.

Even if Blanket’s surrogate mother or the egg donor were to come forward, legal experts say they would almost certainly have no claim to him.

dag said:

http://www.digitalspy.co....ealed.html

u guys gotta keep up with the news

Unique, you need to realize one thing: your information comes from one of the biggest tabloids in the world. The Mirror keeps inventing trash about MJ and, funnily enough, their "sources" are not convincing.

MOL said:

so what?

someone asked for a source. news is news, whether it's true or not. remember tabloids reported most of the stories about MJ throughout his life, and MJ himself gave stories to the tabloids. "tabloids" reported MJ's cardiac arrest first, then his death first

just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's true. most readers take these stories with a pinch of salt

in this particular case, why would you think the information isn't true? what do you have to back that up?

unique said:


If this is true the article clearly states that the Mexican woman was the surrogate and not the biological mother hence the last line where it says that another woman gave Michael her egg.
[Edited 8/15/09 3:22am]

StillDirrty said:[quote]unique said:



but if you change the bold bits and simply quote that, it gives a different meaning

in the article they are starting that the quoted part above is true, but the egg part is "believed" to be true

unique said:

It doesn't change a thing. The first article you posted^. Surrogate mother and biological mother are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It takes sperm and egg to make a child. Both articles explain that the Mexican woman was JUST the carrier.

StillDirrty said:

but if you read the article properly it says as a definitive statement that the mother is mexican, and it's then saying that there might have been an egg donor. they are saying one part is true, and one part may be true

thus according to the article, a mexican woman is the mother. whether you define her as the mother or not if another egg was used is simply semantics

NO.
The only time the word Mexican is used is in association with the surrogate mother. The biological mother has yet to be revealed if ever. They don't know anything about her.

unique said:[quote]

dag said:

I do, mostly, but tabloid garbage ain´t no news to me. I thought you had some official confirmation or something that I have missed, but I haven´t.

StillDirrty said:

Exactly. God some people are really ignorant.

First of, this is from the biggest tabloid in the world where it has been proven 90% of the time to provide false information.

Secondly, it still does not reveal Blanket's BIOLOGICAL mother! It has only revealed the surrogate, the oven. So the point of posting this article is again? lol

Whoever the mother is, we will probably never know. But one thing is for certain, Blanket is a replica of his father:






TWINS:











Blanket even looks like his cousin:

Just need to give a heads up to the YouTube member who gave me those pictures to post.

Here is her video that she made on the uncanny resemblance between Blanket & Michael:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...annel_page

Chris Rock says Michael Jackson is a pedo

Dave Chapelle is so much funnier than Chris Rock.