bboy87 said:

mozfonky said:

That's more or less how I feel. I don't think he was hooked on anything at the time of his death based on the autopsy. I also didn't think it was right for everyone to jump to conclusions right away after his death, it just gave the media something to really, really feed on and with the finding that he had nothing in his system which would point to a chronic drug problem, it was almost a letdown for all these vulture type people. I don't know if the 05 thing broke his spirit but wouldn't doubt it. I wish he could know just how many people are broken hearted over his ending, and if you are as crazy as I am, just really pissed off about the injustice of it all. I will also say this, there are a multitude of examples of people using foreign substances and it not having the desired affect, it is nothing to play with. The ancient medical symbol of two snakes facing each other meant the cure can also kill. Unless necessary, don't touch the stuff, something not many of us abide by.

I think people talking about his past addictions and such painted a picture that it's now seen as fact when in truth, we don't really know what was going on. I'll be honest, I did wonder why he was going to the doctor's office regularly from March to June so much but I now realize it was because he was trying to get his health back in order and maybe trying to fix possible damage on his face

I just wish he could see the love he's gotten since June 09 but also the crap people have resorted to since. People who he trusted or considered friends. Quincy doing that interview, Deepak Chopra and his son running to every news outlet that would let them, Brian Oxman pushing through the crowds at the hospital with a smile on his face to do an interview the minute it was confirmed Michael was gone, Arnold Klien running to TMZ doing interviews and lying about his children, sex life, and drug use, going around saying he was Michael's best friend (and getting confronted by Liz Taylor), his father going after his estate for money and doing that LEGENDARY funny interview on Larry King (That shit was seriously must see TV), his mother being exploited to an extent, people who turned their backs on him running and telling their stories about him, people using his death to promote their own careers.....it's crazy what people will do for money and publicity

Yeah. You know what´s funny. I heard some people say that Mike was paranoid. Well, I don´t think he was paranoid. I think he was very real in that way. I mean who would have thought some people that bboy mentioned would turn out this way. I remember in one interview they asked him "who are your best-friends?" and he just said "my children." Can you imagine the horror of not being able to trust anyone? Can you imagine the horror of going throught the allegations and going through so much hate? I mean, I am "only" a fan and I felt it, I wasn´t living in it. Mike, you are my Superman for going through so much and still keeping that love and optimism. I don´t think that Elvis or any other celebrity has been through so much and they also couldn´t handle that.

[Edited 8/25/10 2:01am]

bboy87 said:

I'll just say this much on the propofol/murray situation

I think Michael's death was caused not by someone intending to kill someone or Michael's alleged addiction (we don't know what Michael was going through and I don't feel right discussing it), but by medical incompetence. The nurse (I think her name is Cherilyn Lee) saying Michael told her "No, the doctor said it's okay as long as I have someone watching me), I don't know, that sounds like someone who's been misinformed.

I don't like talking about the cause of Michael's death because we really don't know what happened or how it happened. I'm not gonna say "oh Michael was an addict and he died from his addiction" because I don't believe he was at the time of his death or I'm not too sure of it although I agree that using something like propofol is extreme, plus the autopsy says otherwise. I believe it's possible that his team decided that propofol was okay to use because they needed him to sleep and be ready for his commitments so which could be why he used it, and I'm not gonna say Murray intended to kill him because I'm not sure I believe it or the many conspiracy theories. Plus, who really wants to face the WRATH of MICHAEL JACKSON FANS WORLDWIDE. I'd rather get a tattoo of a turd with a rusty needle

Although I believe that was due to medical incompetence and not an intention to kill or Michael's possible addictions, I do think that greediness from AEG and Michael's team plays a part in it.

And another thing, Michael may have transitioned on June 25th but as I said before, Michael had been slowly dying since 2005

Dude had too many hangers-on telling him he was alright. My thing is folks KNEW he was in trouble, the FUCK didn't they do anything?

Yeah that's what I thought. Michael was betrayed. Simple as that.

Thing is he still had courage. That was one thing that stood out for me especially after what he went through 2005. They couldn't take that away.

[Edited 8/25/10 2:01am]

bboy87 said:

I just wish he could see the love he's gotten since June 09 but also the crap people have resorted to since. People who he trusted or considered friends. Quincy doing that interview, Deepak Chopra and his son running to every news outlet that would let them, Brian Oxman pushing through the crowds at the hospital with a smile on his face to do an interview the minute it was confirmed Michael was gone, Arnold Klien running to TMZ doing interviews and lying about his children, sex life, and drug use, going around saying he was Michael's best friend (and getting confronted by Liz Taylor), his father going after his estate for money and doing that LEGENDARY funny interview on Larry King (That shit was seriously must see TV), his mother being exploited to an extent, people who turned their backs on him running and telling their stories about him, people using his death to promote their own careers.....it's crazy what people will do for money and publicity

I guess the second part ("crap" part) would not have been really a news to him. However I am glad he could witness nothing of things you named - and also many others.

OT: does your competence go beyond MJ's music/art? Can't find some answers (((

greatpink said:

bboy87 said:

I just wish he could see the love he's gotten since June 09 but also the crap people have resorted to since. People who he trusted or considered friends. Quincy doing that interview, Deepak Chopra and his son running to every news outlet that would let them, Brian Oxman pushing through the crowds at the hospital with a smile on his face to do an interview the minute it was confirmed Michael was gone, Arnold Klien running to TMZ doing interviews and lying about his children, sex life, and drug use, going around saying he was Michael's best friend (and getting confronted by Liz Taylor), his father going after his estate for money and doing that LEGENDARY funny interview on Larry King (That shit was seriously must see TV), his mother being exploited to an extent, people who turned their backs on him running and telling their stories about him, people using his death to promote their own careers.....it's crazy what people will do for money and publicity

I guess the second part ("crap" part) would not have been really a news to him. However I am glad he could witness nothing of things you named - and also many others.

OT: does your competence go beyond MJ's music/art? Can't find some answers (((

What do you mean?

Back to the music -

Blood on the Dance Floor

With the HiStory tour still swirling around the globe, Blood On The Dance Floor seemed like a quick (some might argue) rushed release to quickly follow and keep the momentum going. Perhaps knowing that a short time between albums was a rare thing when it came to Michael, Sony cobbled together this strange mix of remix material and new songs – though just how new was debatable.

Blood On The Dance Floor was initially recorded as part of Dangerous and didn’t see the light of day until 6 years later here. With a beat reminiscent of Remember The Time (and bass groove of Do The Bart Man) Jackson layers his vocals in almost hushed tones in the verses before moving into full voice in the chorus. As if seducing the listener in the same way the song’s temptress does, the song slinks along and teases with the promise of more but doesn’t truly realise its potential. A tad generic in its composition it is a solid track but offers nothing new of fresh to Jacksons catalogue.

Thankfully Morphine did offer something new. Dark, and eerie, Morphine is one of Jackson’s most experimental and perplexing songs. Half seductive hard hitting industrial funk, half dreamscape orchestral, the song has a rough edge to it that sharpens its teeth as Michael bites off the lyrics and spits them out. Almost abrasive the track grabs the listener and doesn’t let go only offering moments of respite as Michael sings “trust in me, just in me” in soothing and seductive tones. Partly confessional, the song gives us a peek into Michael’s darker side retelling (and foretelling) his addiction to pain killers and Demerol and contains samples from Jackson’s favourite film The Elephant Man. It’s as if in each verse Michael layouts out all the factors in his life that are pushing him to the edge; the mistrust, the paranoia, the double crosses, those just after another cut and then when the song drifts off to a sweeping orchestral break the soothing appeal of the drug itself is on display before the come down back to reality kicks back in. Morphine will always be a song that is close to the bone, but like all great art it has a boldness to it and tension.

Whereas Morphine pushed into new territory. Superfly Sister sounded dated from the very first beat. For some reason it feels not quite finished, and more of a demo guide that a finished song. Its funky vocal groove has Michael working his way through the verses without taking a breath before sliding into the chorus. With its tale of lust and sexual manipulation on display the song has a rawer funk edge to it than some of his other work of the time, but ultimately it sounds like a poorer sister to many of the tracks on Dangerous. Not so Superfly after all.

For many fans there will always be a debate between Ghost and Is It Scary? For mine, Ghost offers a richer listening experience. With a hard to resist groove that swings its way through the verses before thumping home in the chorus. The vocal harmonies also feel richer as they ask “who gave you the right to share my family tree”. Lyrically Michael seems to be taking aim at certain members of his family with reference to back stabbing jealousy and selling him out. But of course, in typical Michael style he wraps all this anger and venom into an irresistible song that makes you want to get up and move.

With a soothing introduction Is It Scary soon turns ominous and threatening as wind slowly builds, doors creak and the beat shuffles along. Michael’s lyrics here share similar themes with Ghost, but this time seems to reflect the wacko jacko role the world has created for him. Half asking if this is the role they want him to play, and half taunting that well if that’s the case you ain't seen nothing yet Michael teases “if you want to see eccentric comedies, I’ll be grotesque before your eyes”. The chorus with a harder rockier feel flips the subject matter and lays out the thought that perhaps the strange and curious creature is not Michael but the public that almost demand oddities from him. At times Is It Scary packs a bit of a punch, and stretches Michael musical canon but at the same time seems to dwell a little too much in the same themes of Thriller, and Threatened. Maybe this time round though his anger and feeling of being victimised was warranted.

The rest of the album featuring remixes is a bit hit and miss as most fail to bring a fresh perspective to the tracks of HiStory, although credit must be given to including two non singles in the form of Money and 2Bad which were some of HiStory’s strongest moments.

Not quite a new album, nor a convincing remix project, Blood On The Dance Floor remains an oddity in the Jackson collection that save for Morphine (and perhaps Ghost) doesn’t really add anything new and inventive to his catalogue. Gone was the emotional rawness of HiStory with it’s painfully personal lyrics (again Morphine is the exception) in stead Michael seems content to drift back into a world of visual and lyrical fantasy to convey his message and focuses more to finding his place back on the dance floor. Whether or not it is to be considered an album, I am thankful that Michael was brave enough to include Morphine and confront some of his demon's so courageously in song. For that reason alone BOTDF is a must have.

So what did you all think of BOTDF? How do you view it in light of everything he has done?

bboy87 said:

I'll just say this much on the propofol/murray situation

I think Michael's death was caused not by someone intending to kill someone or Michael's alleged addiction (we don't know what Michael was going through and I don't feel right discussing it), but by medical incompetence. The nurse (I think her name is Cherilyn Lee) saying Michael told her "No, the doctor said it's okay as long as I have someone watching me), I don't know, that sounds like someone who's been misinformed.

I don't like talking about the cause of Michael's death because we really don't know what happened or how it happened. I'm not gonna say "oh Michael was an addict and he died from his addiction" because I don't believe he was at the time of his death or I'm not too sure of it although I agree that using something like propofol is extreme, plus the autopsy says otherwise. I believe it's possible that his team decided that propofol was okay to use because they needed him to sleep and be ready for his commitments so which could be why he used it, and I'm not gonna say Murray intended to kill him because I'm not sure I believe it or the many conspiracy theories. Plus, who really wants to face the WRATH of MICHAEL JACKSON FANS WORLDWIDE. I'd rather get a tattoo of a turd with a rusty needle

Although I believe that was due to medical incompetence and not an intention to kill or Michael's possible addictions, I do think that greediness from AEG and Michael's team plays a part in it.

And another thing, Michael may have transitioned on June 25th but as I said before, Michael had been slowly dying since 2005

In what way was AEG greedy?

AEG is a billion dollar company. They did nothing wrong and certainly they do not have to be greedy as they're already very rich. They treated Michael well, encouraged and protected him from some vultures and vampires. I'm sick of people painting AEG in a bad light. For instance, how, when and where, exactly, was AEG greedy? What did they do wrong? I'll help you: nothing.

Michael died due to medical negligence. It had nothing to do with addiction. He died because the doctor who was responsible for making him sleep admnistered 40x more Propofol than he should have, which resulted in a death by overdose.

Propofol and related anesthetics were, effectively, the only medication Michael was taking. Was he addicted to Propofol as Janet said? Here comes the laughable part: had Michael been addicted to such a powerful sedative and he wouldn't even been able to move his legs or to even get out of bed. Yet, there are thousands of recorded rehearsels. This, alone, immeadiately kills ANY "addicted to Propofol" theory and also sheds light on Janet's medical knowledge and intelligence all-round.

The only greedy people are the ones who are now blaming AEG and calling Michael an addict. They know full well that, by labeling Michael a junkie, they can create an argument to create a lawsuit against the referred company and, eventually -and if successful-, get an enormous payday. If they don't call him an addict, then no possible argument can be used to sue AEG. Get why Oxman, Latoya and Rowe are EVERYWHERE on the internet, radio and TV calling Michael an addict? Because that is the only way they have to create an argument to sue AEG and, obviously, try getting a payday.

BTW, do you even know that AEG lost lots of money with this whole Michael Jackson O2 concerts? Do you know just how rich Randy Phillips is? He doesn't need to be greedy. But others do. And we know full well who they are.

[Edited 8/25/10 3:26am]

Timmy84 said:

bboy87 said:

I'll just say this much on the propofol/murray situation

I think Michael's death was caused not by someone intending to kill someone or Michael's alleged addiction (we don't know what Michael was going through and I don't feel right discussing it), but by medical incompetence. The nurse (I think her name is Cherilyn Lee) saying Michael told her "No, the doctor said it's okay as long as I have someone watching me), I don't know, that sounds like someone who's been misinformed.

I don't like talking about the cause of Michael's death because we really don't know what happened or how it happened. I'm not gonna say "oh Michael was an addict and he died from his addiction" because I don't believe he was at the time of his death or I'm not too sure of it although I agree that using something like propofol is extreme, plus the autopsy says otherwise. I believe it's possible that his team decided that propofol was okay to use because they needed him to sleep and be ready for his commitments so which could be why he used it, and I'm not gonna say Murray intended to kill him because I'm not sure I believe it or the many conspiracy theories. Plus, who really wants to face the WRATH of MICHAEL JACKSON FANS WORLDWIDE. I'd rather get a tattoo of a turd with a rusty needle

Although I believe that was due to medical incompetence and not an intention to kill or Michael's possible addictions, I do think that greediness from AEG and Michael's team plays a part in it.

And another thing, Michael may have transitioned on June 25th but as I said before, Michael had been slowly dying since 2005

Dude had too many hangers-on telling him he was alright. My thing is folks KNEW he was in trouble, the FUCK didn't they do anything?

Yeah that's what I thought. Michael was betrayed. Simple as that.

Thing is he still had courage. That was one thing that stood out for me especially after what he went through 2005. They couldn't take that away.

[Edited 8/25/10 2:01am]

Here we go...

Trouble because of what?

Michael WAS alright. His death could have happened to the healthiest person in the world. In what way, exactly, was he "in trouble"? Why "the FUCK" would "they" do anything?

Too many Joe Jackson, Oxman, Rowe, Latoya and AllGood fans on here, uh?

By the way, the way AEG was controlling him viciously with drugs was horrible, right? And Joe tried to save Michael but AEG didn't let him! And the family tried to do the same but Michael, because of his enormous drug habbit, wanted nothing to do with his saviour-like family! And it's not as if Murray wasn't just the scapegoat to an immense conspiracy theory which includes, humm...err, basically every rich entity possible so Joe can blame them for Michael's death and, eventually, sue them, OK? Joe Jackson: you're not fighting this battle alone! JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL FOREVER!!! L.O.V.E.

A3G k!ll3d Micha3l! Go Joe! Go Oxman!

P.S.: I bet AEG fabricated the autopsy report! Greedy vultures!!!

Perhaps, after this display of delusion intelligence, I'll now be venerated in this forum.

bboy87 said:

greatpink said:

I guess the second part ("crap" part) would not have been really a news to him. However I am glad he could witness nothing of things you named - and also many others.

OT: does your competence go beyond MJ's music/art? Can't find some answers (((

What do you mean?

...that you might know few things I want to know

For instance, what was really with the "conflict of interests" created in MJ's contract with Sony?
Tara(borelly) tries to explain it; Lynton Guest ("The Trials of MJ") says Tara's depiction is not exactly accurate (though "plausible and close enough to the truth to sell it"), but does not say WHAT was so inaccurate. Go guessing.
Who was responsible for that "conflict of interests"?

There is a talk - time and again - about some "lawyers who represented MJ and Sony at the same time", but no reasonable explanations how it came to this and no names. I know that Branca was said to have structured that contract, but he was not there any longer to the timepoint it had been sighed. (For the record, I know about LeGrand investigations later on and that nothing had been proven).

Tara made some indications in one of his "M&M" Deluxe Editions (one of Geffen's people, if I remember correctly), and later withdrew them again - in Updated Deluxe Editions . Though I wouldn't trust Tara too much this way or another: he is too busy trying to piss nobody off and too obviously favourable with people who cooperated with him on his book.

One another thing: is it a rumor or a proven fact that Jason Francia was married to Dom's daughter (or was related to him some other way)?
If so, how come Messereau has never addressed it? (Or has he and I missed something?)
Did he have no idea about their relation? Or did he have reasons NOT to mention it?
Is it possibly the reason why the jury didn't take Francia's testimony too serious? Could they know smth. the general public didn't?

Ugh, perhaps this is a wrong timepoint to ask about the trial - drop it, if so.

But:
There was a Bashir discussion here not so long ago, and L.Guest insists that it was actually in his power to stop the 2005 trial in the very beginning without even coming to harm (the question if he had seen his own documentary before it was aired, that Bashir refused to answer), but apparently Bashir DID want the trial to happen - according to Guest.

Not that I mistrust his judgement, but this was just another piece of belletristic "about MJ". Now from the legal point of view IS THIS TRUE?

(...got more questions...)

[Edited 8/25/10 4:43am]

^^ I don't believe Bashir wanted the trial - he wouldn't have known there would be claims against him by the kids he was interviewing. What he did though was manipulate the footage with a decided point of view so as to create more controversy and boost his career of delivery high rating interviews. It was a selfish act that didn't look beyond the immediate fame it would bring him or the long term harm it would cause Michael and his image.

Just a couple of random thoughts.

Bboy just reminded me about Michael's frequent visits to the doctors in the last few months of his life.

Now, I remember seeing those pictures at the time, and I distinctly remember that in one such set of photos, that may even have been taken in June, just a few weeks before he died, that there was a woman standing behind Michael and she appeared to be crying. Does anyone remember this and find it weird at all? What could cause her to be so upset?

Also, a completely unrelated thought I just had....I always just assumed that in "They Don't Care About Us" when Michael sings

"Some things in life they just don't wanna see
But if Martin Luther was livin'
He wouldn't let this be"

that he was referring to MLK. But since he didn't specifically say, I wonder if perhaps he did actually mean Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect of Christianity.

What I found interesting about this, (and I am in NO WAY trying to suggest that Michael was prejudiced or bigoted, so don't even bother) is that Martin Luther was noted for being Anti-Semitic. In his writings he stated that Jewish homes should be destroyed and synagogues burned.

So of course I remembered that this was the exact same song in which Michael had the lyrics "Jew me, sue me" and "Kick me, kike me" and was accused by the Anti Defamation League of being Anti-Semitic due to using those terms.

Of course we know that Michael re-recorded the song, changing the lyrics and made a public statement of being misinterpreted in his use of those words.

Like I said, not trying to suggest anything, it's just something I found interesting.

The Wiz to be released on blu ray!!!

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5037

Militant said:

Just a couple of random thoughts.

Bboy just reminded me about Michael's frequent visits to the doctors in the last few months of his life.

Now, I remember seeing those pictures at the time, and I distinctly remember that in one such set of photos, that may even have been taken in June, just a few weeks before he died, that there was a woman standing behind Michael and she appeared to be crying. Does anyone remember this and find it weird at all? What could cause her to be so upset?

Also, a completely unrelated thought I just had....I always just assumed that in "They Don't Care About Us" when Michael sings

"Some things in life they just don't wanna see
But if Martin Luther was livin'
He wouldn't let this be"

that he was referring to MLK. But since he didn't specifically say, I wonder if perhaps he did actually mean Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect of Christianity.

What I found interesting about this, (and I am in NO WAY trying to suggest that Michael was prejudiced or bigoted, so don't even bother) is that Martin Luther was noted for being Anti-Semitic. In his writings he stated that Jewish homes should be destroyed and synagogues burned.

So of course I remembered that this was the exact same song in which Michael had the lyrics "Jew me, sue me" and "Kick me, kike me" and was accused by the Anti Defamation League of being Anti-Semitic due to using those terms.

Of course we know that Michael re-recorded the song, changing the lyrics and made a public statement of being misinterpreted in his use of those words.

Like I said, not trying to suggest anything, it's just something I found interesting.

I could be wrong but I believe I heard the girl with him was crying because there was a TON of Paprazzi pestering him..I'm not sure if that's why she was crying though.

Here I believe, is a video of when that girl was crying , skip to 1:10

As far as the Martin Luther thing. He is 100%, referring to Martin Luther King..They Don't Care About Us is about injustice and corrupt powers toward a group of people (as well as himself) so he is referring to MLK who dealt with fixing this stuff.

Oh and in the Prison Version of the music video, when he sings the Martin Luther part , there is a Picture of Martin Luther King right beside Michael. - At 3:25

[Edited 8/25/10 6:42am]

[Edited 8/25/10 6:44am]

"...documentary aired" - in trial.

Here is the part that I meant:

...The strangest of all the refusals, though, was when Mesereau asked: ‘Before this film was shown (to the court) and I am talking about the actual film shown by the prosecution today, did you watch the trial reel?’ That question seems, at first glance, innocuous. Yet Bashir refused to tell the jury whether or not he had seen the film, despite Judge Melville’s decision that the question did not fall under the Shield Law.

Why would he do that? Only Bashir can actually say but it could be that the truthful response was ‘no’. Bashir had either seen the reel or he hadn’t. If he had, it seems inconceivable that he would not have let the court know. If he hadn’t, that presented a serious problem for the prosecution. If Bashir had not seen the reel, then either the video screened in the court could not be proved to be exactly the same as the programme that was broadcast or it was the same but Bashir had never watched his own show, which was so unlikely as to be almost beyond mention. A ‘current affairs film-maker’, like any film-maker in any genre, would be derelict in his duty if he did not bother to watch the cut of his own programme. To my knowledge, no one has ever accused Bashir of that particular offence.

So can we safely assume that Bashir did watch his own programme? It would be extremely risky for Tom Sneddon and his team to have procured a video that was in any way different to that broadcast. It would be bound to be spotted by someone. And anyway, there was no point. The whole world had seen the programme and knew what was in it. A change, even a subtle one, would be spotted by the eagle-eyed defence team.

The scenario that emerges from these considerations points to something else. In the prosecution’s rush to get everything prepared for the opening of the trial and because Martin Bashir is an extremely busy person, he did not personally review the tape that was provided to the prosecution. If he had said this on the witness stand, the tape would not be authenticated
and could not be used in evidence. Bashir was not about to lie on oath but if he admitted to not reviewing the tape, the prosecution’s case would be in tatters. So, submerged in his other non-answers, he refused to answer this one.

Bashir had given the impression publicly that he had no interest in Jackson being prosecuted. But in that case, why not just answer the question and allow the case to collapse? Perhaps Bashir was double-bluffing. On the one hand he wanted to be seen to be playing the role of good reporter by refusing to co-operate with the prosecution but actually he really wanted the prosecution to succeed. He certainly seemed annoyed and in bad temper with Tom Sneddon. Had something gone on behind the scenes which could have exonerated Michael Jackson but some deal had been hastily cobbled together to avert the collapse of the trial on its first day? To this day, that remains unanswered.

Judge Melville now had to decide what to do. Mesereau was on his feet, asking for all Bashir’s evidence to be excluded but particularly the tape of Living with Michael Jackson. Although everyone knew the tape played was the actual programme, technically, it remained in part unauthenticated. It should have been thrown out. But it wasn’t. If it had been the case might well have ended there and then. Instead, the learned judge said that he would rule on the matter later in the proceedings. For the moment, the tape was in. Although Mesereau continued throughout the trial to protest at the tape’s inclusion, Judge Melville had no intention of ruling it out, and he didn’t."

Shortly cut, the author (Lynton Guest) is saying that Bashir - accidentally - could have let the case collapse.

Is he right? Would the wrong answer have ended the case? (Or is it just a wishful thinking?)

Thanks PurpleColossus.

If that's indeed the reason she was crying, I guess she couldn't have been around Mike for too long or she would have been used to it!

And thanks for reminding me about the MLK shot in the video. I always thought that's what he meant anyway, it's the more obvious conclusion. I just found it interesting that there was a possibility that he could have meant the original Martin Luther also. I wonder if he knew it might be interpreted that way. He was definitely well-read enough to have knowledge of who Martin Luther the theologist was. I think that Michael was a lot more knowledgeable about certain subjects than most people would think.

greatpink...

I'm not sure you're going to find an accurate answer to that on this message board, unless anyone here is a fully qualified lawyer.

It's interesting, for sure. I know a little something about law, as my father is a lawyer and I might ask him when I next see him. Although, UK law and US law are obviously not exactly the same, but I imagine something like this might be common in both countries.

How much could/did the prosecution REALLY rely on the documentary anyway though? Does anyone know? I'm guessing the admittance to sharing a bed, but I don't see what else they could have gotten from it.

I guess that by the fact T-Mez was trying to get the evidence excluded, that there's something in the notion of them not being able to prove the video shown was the same as the original documentary. So that does indeed beg the question as to why Bashir did not answer that question. But, was he the only person asked that question? Was the director, cameraman or anybody else that worked on the documentary not present at the trial?

I'm guessing that had Bashir said he hadn't watched the reel, they may indeed have had to withdraw that evidence, but the trial wouldn't have collapsed if he had. Clearly that wasn't the only thing the prosecution were presenting. You couldn't possibly charge somebody with even one count, let alone ten, solely based on that documentary. The charges were coming from the lies that the Arvizo family were telling, plus they were claiming these things happened after the documentary was filmed, anyway.

mozfonky said:

Swa said:

Yes he hated TOURING, not performing which is why the residency gig appealed to him. The quote you refer to he talks about how you are constantly travelling, dealing with jetlag, etc etc.

I still think he could have done the 50 shows over a 9 month period, in fact I had tickets to two nights in March I was that confident.

He wouldn't have done as well as he had in the past but he would have gained self-confidence and a real much needed boost. I think even a diminished Michael would still have been loved just like the fat old Elvis was loved and I'm sure he would have performed better than some of E's dismal shows. After all, no matter what he is Michael F'ng Jackson, he couldn't lose.

A perfectionist never gives a mediocre concert.. Michael Jackson was going to kick ass in London.

Militant said:

greatpink...

I'm not sure you're going to find an accurate answer to that on this message board, unless anyone here is a fully qualified lawyer.

It's interesting, for sure. I know a little something about law, as my father is a lawyer and I might ask him when I next see him. Although, UK law and US law are obviously not exactly the same, but I imagine something like this might be common in both countries.

How much could/did the prosecution REALLY rely on the documentary anyway though? Does anyone know? I'm guessing the admittance to sharing a bed, but I don't see what else they could have gotten from it.

I guess that by the fact T-Mez was trying to get the evidence excluded, that there's something in the notion of them not being able to prove the video shown was the same as the original documentary. So that does indeed beg the question as to why Bashir did not answer that question. But, was he the only person asked that question? Was the director, cameraman or anybody else that worked on the documentary not present at the trial?

I'm guessing that had Bashir said he hadn't watched the reel, they may indeed have had to withdraw that evidence, but the trial wouldn't have collapsed if he had. Clearly that wasn't the only thing the prosecution were presenting. You couldn't possibly charge somebody with even one count, let alone ten, solely based on that documentary. The charges were coming from the lies that the Arvizo family were telling, plus they were claiming these things happened after the documentary was filmed, anyway.

So far I anderstood Bashir's version of LWMJ was a prosecution's key evidence in conspiracy charges (Remember? According to Sneddon it had been so damaging to MJ's image that it made him panic and swear to conspiracy).
With this evidence withdrawn Sneddon might have been forced to drop the conspiracy charges, and without "conspiracy" he wouldn't have been able to explain the rebuttal video - so Arvisos would have lost their credibility at once and for altogehter.

But know something, now I am almost positiv myself that this is a wrong time to discuss it.

Thanks for writing down your thoughts anyway and I will be grateful if you'd still ask your father about it - Later perhaps

Timmy84 said:

bboy87 said:

I'll just say this much on the propofol/murray situation

I think Michael's death was caused not by someone intending to kill someone or Michael's alleged addiction (we don't know what Michael was going through and I don't feel right discussing it), but by medical incompetence. The nurse (I think her name is Cherilyn Lee) saying Michael told her "No, the doctor said it's okay as long as I have someone watching me), I don't know, that sounds like someone who's been misinformed.

I don't like talking about the cause of Michael's death because we really don't know what happened or how it happened. I'm not gonna say "oh Michael was an addict and he died from his addiction" because I don't believe he was at the time of his death or I'm not too sure of it although I agree that using something like propofol is extreme, plus the autopsy says otherwise. I believe it's possible that his team decided that propofol was okay to use because they needed him to sleep and be ready for his commitments so which could be why he used it, and I'm not gonna say Murray intended to kill him because I'm not sure I believe it or the many conspiracy theories. Plus, who really wants to face the WRATH of MICHAEL JACKSON FANS WORLDWIDE. I'd rather get a tattoo of a turd with a rusty needle

Although I believe that was due to medical incompetence and not an intention to kill or Michael's possible addictions, I do think that greediness from AEG and Michael's team plays a part in it.

And another thing, Michael may have transitioned on June 25th but as I said before, Michael had been slowly dying since 2005

Dude had too many hangers-on telling him he was alright. My thing is folks KNEW he was in trouble, the FUCK didn't they do anything?

Yeah that's what I thought. Michael was betrayed. Simple as that.

Thing is he still had courage. That was one thing that stood out for me especially after what he went through 2005. They couldn't take that away.

[Edited 8/25/10 2:01am]

I totally agree Timmy... so much greed..

One thing Joe did do was teach his kids to persevere. I miss Michael and I learned so much about him through his music.

That is the only truth I believe.

Militant said:

Just a couple of random thoughts.

Bboy just reminded me about Michael's frequent visits to the doctors in the last few months of his life.

Now, I remember seeing those pictures at the time, and I distinctly remember that in one such set of photos, that may even have been taken in June, just a few weeks before he died, that there was a woman standing behind Michael and she appeared to be crying. Does anyone remember this and find it weird at all? What could cause her to be so upset?

Also, a completely unrelated thought I just had....I always just assumed that in "They Don't Care About Us" when Michael sings

"Some things in life they just don't wanna see
But if Martin Luther was livin'
He wouldn't let this be"

that he was referring to MLK. But since he didn't specifically say, I wonder if perhaps he did actually mean Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect of Christianity.

What I found interesting about this, (and I am in NO WAY trying to suggest that Michael was prejudiced or bigoted, so don't even bother) is that Martin Luther was noted for being Anti-Semitic. In his writings he stated that Jewish homes should be destroyed and synagogues burned.

So of course I remembered that this was the exact same song in which Michael had the lyrics "Jew me, sue me" and "Kick me, kike me" and was accused by the Anti Defamation League of being Anti-Semitic due to using those terms.

Of course we know that Michael re-recorded the song, changing the lyrics and made a public statement of being misinterpreted in his use of those words.

Like I said, not trying to suggest anything, it's just something I found interesting.

As a child growing up in the late 50's early 60's , I can so remember the slang of Jew Me.

I heard it alot in the content of that man is trying to Jew me.. Slang for cheat me.

So I can see exactly where he got that.

Swa said:

suga10 said:

I think MJ was pushed into this London concert series. I really think he was doing this because he had to fix up some of his financial issues up. I don't think he was nearly as broke as the media like to say, but there was some sort of financially related problem in there somewhere that he had to take care of.

MJ in the private home videos stated how he hated touring, and how this caused his body a great deal of stress.

Personally if I were MJ, I would went into filmmaking. He always stated how he had a desire to make movies.

[Edited 8/24/10 16:55pm]

Yes he hated TOURING, not performing which is why the residency gig appealed to him. The quote you refer to he talks about how you are constantly travelling, dealing with jetlag, etc etc.

I still think he could have done the 50 shows over a 9 month period, in fact I had tickets to two nights in March I was that confident.

So Why are Karen Faye and Michael Bush speaking out that Michael wasn't ready? These people know more about what was happening behind the scenes. They have been near Michael for a long time.

Michael has not performed that many shows in a long time in front of people- he has went through tramautical experiences in his life. He was the not the same Michael from the Dangerous Era, History Era, and Bad Era. He went through a physically and emotionally draining trial which took out the energy from him, and he was still recovering these recent years from that. His priorities changed in recent year. It was not touring, it was about recovering from that crazy trial he went through and getting his life back on track. In addition he was 50 years old- he was not a young man at all.

It is not easy to go through 50 shows after years of not performing.

Even Leonard Rowe stated that that Michael told him how they screwed up the scheduling of the shows.

He was fearful about being judged again by the media. I think there was so much pressure on him.

[Edited 8/25/10 9:41am]

[Edited 8/25/10 9:42am]

MOL said:

Timmy84 said:

Dude had too many hangers-on telling him he was alright. My thing is folks KNEW he was in trouble, the FUCK didn't they do anything?

Yeah that's what I thought. Michael was betrayed. Simple as that.

Thing is he still had courage. That was one thing that stood out for me especially after what he went through 2005. They couldn't take that away.

[Edited 8/25/10 2:01am]

Here we go...

Trouble because of what?

Michael WAS alright. His death could have happened to the healthiest person in the world. In what way, exactly, was he "in trouble"? Why "the FUCK" would "they" do anything?

Too many Joe Jackson, Oxman, Rowe, Latoya and AllGood fans on here, uh?

By the way, the way AEG was controlling him viciously with drugs was horrible, right? And Joe tried to save Michael but AEG didn't let him! And the family tried to do the same but Michael, because of his enormous drug habbit, wanted nothing to do with his saviour-like family! And it's not as if Murray wasn't just the scapegoat to an immense conspiracy theory which includes, humm...err, basically every rich entity possible so Joe can blame them for Michael's death and, eventually, sue them, OK? Joe Jackson: you're not fighting this battle alone! JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL FOREVER!!! L.O.V.E.

A3G k!ll3d Micha3l! Go Joe! Go Oxman!

P.S.: I bet AEG fabricated the autopsy report! Greedy vultures!!!

Perhaps, after this display of delusion intelligence, I'll now be venerated in this forum.

Alright if Michael was in such great health, why could AEG not get even a decent rehearsal of an entire song he performed in the whole movie- without him changing outfits every single minute?How the funny the singing sound exactly the same throughout this entire clip while he's changing outfits every 30 seconds.

Also why why is there such a big drug investigation after his death as well?

Human Nature- This is It

Dangerous Tour Rehearsal- 5 minute footage, where Michael completes the song in its entirety

Smooth Criminal Dangerous Tour Rehearsal

greatpink said:

(Remember? According to Sneddon it had been so damaging to MJ's image that it made him panic and swear to conspiracy).

Surely that's speculative though? I need to go back and read through the documents. But there's gotta be something more to it than that otherwise it's just conjecture.

greatpink said:

Militant said:

greatpink...

I'm not sure you're going to find an accurate answer to that on this message board, unless anyone here is a fully qualified lawyer.

It's interesting, for sure. I know a little something about law, as my father is a lawyer and I might ask him when I next see him. Although, UK law and US law are obviously not exactly the same, but I imagine something like this might be common in both countries.

How much could/did the prosecution REALLY rely on the documentary anyway though? Does anyone know? I'm guessing the admittance to sharing a bed, but I don't see what else they could have gotten from it.

I guess that by the fact T-Mez was trying to get the evidence excluded, that there's something in the notion of them not being able to prove the video shown was the same as the original documentary. So that does indeed beg the question as to why Bashir did not answer that question. But, was he the only person asked that question? Was the director, cameraman or anybody else that worked on the documentary not present at the trial?

I'm guessing that had Bashir said he hadn't watched the reel, they may indeed have had to withdraw that evidence, but the trial wouldn't have collapsed if he had. Clearly that wasn't the only thing the prosecution were presenting. You couldn't possibly charge somebody with even one count, let alone ten, solely based on that documentary. The charges were coming from the lies that the Arvizo family were telling, plus they were claiming these things happened after the documentary was filmed, anyway.

So far I anderstood Bashir's version of LWMJ was a prosecution's key evidence in conspiracy charges (Remember? According to Sneddon it had been so damaging to MJ's image that it made him panic and swear to conspiracy).
With this evidence withdrawn Sneddon might have been forced to drop the conspiracy charges, and without "conspiracy" he wouldn't have been able to explain the rebuttal video - so Arvisos would have lost their credibility at once and for altogehter.

But know something, now I am almost positiv myself that this is a wrong time to discuss it.

Thanks for writing down your thoughts anyway and I will be grateful if you'd still ask your father about it - Later perhaps

It does appear that Bashir was the key player in this trial, determining MJ's guilt or innocence. I do remember MJ saying that there's a conspiracy against him, as I look at his tapings and lyrics. To my understanding, Sony and the DA Sneddon played a big part in the conspiracy because of a long time dispute with them. However, it would be interesting if anyone who practices law here can answer the question. As for the timing, regarding discussing the trial, I'm open to it, but I speak for myself. This post does say "Discuss Everything and Anything MJ", but I see what you're saying.

Is this all true

Joe Jackson -- Dr. Murray Held MJ Drug Intervention
34 minutes ago by TMZ Staff

Joe Jackson has re-filed his wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Conrad Murray -- and now claims Dr. Murray and AEG staged an intervention with Michael Jackson one week before he died.



According to the new documents, Dr. Murray and representatives from AEG went to Michael Jackson's home on N. Carolwood Drive on June 18, 2009 -- and said they were there for a "drug intervention."

The suit claims during the meeting AEG demanded Michael "stop seeing Dr. Arnold Klein and stop taking the drugs Klein gave to him." They wanted Michael to "take only the medications being given to him by Conrad Murray."

According to the suit ... the intervention was intended to get Michael to adhere to Dr. Murray's drug regimen so he could get more sleep. AEG thought Michael was missing rehearsals because of medications from Dr. Klein and other doctors.

The suit also alleges that in the days leading up to Michael's death it was apparent he was getting weaker and weaker, at times seeming "drugged and disoriented."

The upshot of the lawsuit -- the intervention and general concern over MJ's drug use is proof Dr. Murray had no business administering Propofol and other drugs to the singer and that Dr. Murray knew he was playing with fire.

Filed under: Michael Jackson, Joe Jackson, Conrad Murray, Brian Oxman, Celebrity Justice

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/25/joe-jacks ... ntion-aeg/

MOL said:

Timmy84 said:

Dude had too many hangers-on telling him he was alright. My thing is folks KNEW he was in trouble, the FUCK didn't they do anything?

Yeah that's what I thought. Michael was betrayed. Simple as that.

Thing is he still had courage. That was one thing that stood out for me especially after what he went through 2005. They couldn't take that away.

[Edited 8/25/10 2:01am]

Here we go...

Trouble because of what?

Michael WAS alright. His death could have happened to the healthiest person in the world. In what way, exactly, was he "in trouble"? Why "the FUCK" would "they" do anything?

Too many Joe Jackson, Oxman, Rowe, Latoya and AllGood fans on here, uh?

By the way, the way AEG was controlling him viciously with drugs was horrible, right? And Joe tried to save Michael but AEG didn't let him! And the family tried to do the same but Michael, because of his enormous drug habbit, wanted nothing to do with his saviour-like family! And it's not as if Murray wasn't just the scapegoat to an immense conspiracy theory which includes, humm...err, basically every rich entity possible so Joe can blame them for Michael's death and, eventually, sue them, OK? Joe Jackson: you're not fighting this battle alone! JUSTICE FOR MICHAEL FOREVER!!! L.O.V.E.

A3G k!ll3d Micha3l! Go Joe! Go Oxman!

P.S.: I bet AEG fabricated the autopsy report! Greedy vultures!!!

Perhaps, after this display of delusion intelligence, I'll now be venerated in this forum.

I think the man was just in over his head and he felt that way too. He just looked very unhealthy to me, now that could all be my projections and I know he was 50 but to me it looked like he was being pushed. That's no more AEG or whoever's fault than it is when any of us get overrworked by an employer. Sometimes people just don't see what's going on or turn a blind eye. I keep thinking of the scene in This is it Where Michael is watching like a puppetmaster over the dancers during "Threatened" and one of the guys is helping him get off stage. Although that scene is mesmerizing and Michael is charismatic as ever and still can dance and all that shit, it looks like the people around him are just oblivious or in denial as to how deathly the man looks.

I had posted these in the family thread but since that's closed might as well post em here.

Host of events to mark Michael Jackson's birthday

The Urban League of Northwest Indiana is offering two tickets for the price of one to "A Michael Jackson Tribute Spectacular" on Saturday at Merrillville's Star Plaza Theatre.

"If you buy one ticket, you get the other ticket of the same value free," said Vanessa Allen, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit organization, which serves Lake, Porter and LaPorte counties.

Under the two-for-one deal, tickets priced at $28, $48 and $68 can be purchased through Friday at the Urban League office, 3101 Broadway, Gary.

More information is available by calling 887-9621.

The Michael Jackson tribute concert, which starts 8 p.m. Saturday, features Tony Award winner Melba Moore and Jennifer Batten, a former tour guitarist for Jackson.

Also scheduled to perform is Jackson impersonator Edward Moss and a large choir of Northwest Indiana residents.

Allen said the Urban League of Northwest Indiana will get 15 percent of the ticket sales it generates for the "Tribute Spectacular."

That percentage is earmarked for educational initiatives.

The tribute concert for the iconic Gary native is a centerpiece for the four-day MJFanvention, which begins Thursday, and is based at the Radisson Hotel at Star Plaza.

When it comes to those who buy various event packages or pay some type of admission fee, the producer of the Jackson fan fest expects a turnout of several hundred people -- perhaps as many as 700.

Meanwhile, city officials announced Monday they will hold a "This is It" birthday tribute and block party for the late entertainer. The tribute will be 2 to 6 p.m. at 2300 Jackson St., the family's home where Michael grew up. The tribute includes local entertainment, music, a Michael Jackson impersonator, and a special birthday cake made by Hazel Montgomery of Gary.

Related activities include a scheduled appearance by Joe Jackson -- Michael's father -- at a ceremonial cutting of his late son's birthday cake between 2 and 4 p.m. Saturday at the old Jackson-family home, 2300 Jackson St., Gary.

"The King of Pop" would have turned 52 this Sunday.

Also this week, there's a West Side Theatre Guild stage play called "Michael Jackson.. Yesterday, Today and Forever," at 7 p.m. Thursday at West Side High School. Tickets will be sold at the door.

At 2 p.m. Saturday, a huge "Thriller" dance will be performed to the Jackson song of the same name at Michael's childhood home and on Roosevelt High School property directly behind it.

http://www.post-trib.com/...ix.article

Militant said:

that he was referring to MLK. But since he didn't specifically say, I wonder if perhaps he did actually mean Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect of Christianity.

As someone already mentioned, he was referring to MLK, but I have been joking about that since I first heard the song. I know that he loved to read up on his history, but I truly wondered how much he had read upon to know if he was actually referring to that Martin Luther instead of the one I know he really intended. I'm going to assume that he didn't even though that seems like a really huge coincidence. Maybe he did that on purpose? I just wonder because when he was talking to Rabbi Schumley(sp?) or so he seemed pretty ignorant to some of the basics of Judaism, unless he was just playing stupid. Then again, Michael had a song called In The Closet and he never renamed it either knowing or not knowing what that phrase meant so who knows? He may have, genuinely, not known, or he just couldn't be bothered and just did whatever the hell he wanted to do anyway.

I mean, at the same token one could debate exactly which Roosevelt was he referring to? Teddy or Franklin or both and how does that reflect on his personal ideals, if they even do?

Speaking of Blood on the Dancefloor, my favorite song on it is Morphine. The one thing I particularly like about MJ's songs is his ability to have the sound of the music illustrate the story of the lyrics, as done in Dirty Diana (another favorite of mine). In Morphine, in the midst of the craziness of what could be his life, there's this really dreamy moment which, I think, is supposed to mimic the effect that drug has on you. It's like an escape from the craziness and it seduces you in with its sweet sound representing the dream like state it puts you in. Then, once the effect has worn off you crash back down into the harsh reality that made you seek out the drug in the first place. I also noticed that in the lyrics he refers to what seems to be interracial relationships again as he did in Black or White. Seeing how he was involved in one at this time, I wonder if he was getting a lot of flack for it on his side or was that his way of addressing critics? I just wish he did a video for the song. I would have taken one for that one even though I really liked the one for BOTDF. I even would have taken that over Ghosts.

Superfly Sista' sounds Prince inspired. I do like it, but it just seems like one big jam session they were having in the studio one day. I also prefer Is It Scary to Ghosts. I love the build up in the instrumentation, especially towards end and then it calms down. Personally, I prefer a lot of Michael's darker work which is why when I hear Invincible I'm like "WTF?!" I don't hate the album, I just feel that there was just some really great work that came out of the History/BOTDF era and then he took a 180 with his final album. There's a few tracks on it that seem to give a slight peek into his world, but not really, not like before. I guess this is why I was curious as to what MJ's music post 2005 was going to sound like, because I wondered what kind of direction he was going to go in, especially after all the shit he had gone through. Would he have been able to put everything behind him? Would all of that be reflected into his work? Then again, I see the list of producers he was working with and I get scared, b/c I have gotten so sick of r&b/pop this last decade that I completely abandoned it. Then again, this is still MJ we're talking about and I should have some faith in him. Yet, as I said, I don't know how deeply the trial and the ordeal surrounding it affected him as a human being and how that, in turn, affected his own work.

Guess I'll find out come November.

[Edited 8/25/10 11:11am]

The background vocals of "Liberian Girl" near the end with MJ's lead vocal and some of the instrumentation taking off and also his backgrounds in "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' '08", "Heaven Can Wait", "Off the Wall" and "Baby Be Mine":

Unholyalliance said:

Militant said:

that he was referring to MLK. But since he didn't specifically say, I wonder if perhaps he did actually mean Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect of Christianity.

As someone already mentioned, he was referring to MLK, but I have been joking about that since I first heard the song. I know that he loved to read up on his history, but I truly wondered how much he had read upon to know if he was actually referring to that Martin Luther instead of the one I know he really intended. I'm going to assume that he didn't even though that seems like a really huge coincidence. Maybe he did that on purpose? I just wonder because when he was talking to Rabbi Schumley(sp?) or so he seemed pretty ignorant to some of the basics of Judaism, unless he was just playing stupid. Then again, Michael had a song called In The Closet and he never renamed it either knowing or not knowing what that phrase meant so who knows? He may have, genuinely, not known, or he just couldn't be bothered and just did whatever the hell he wanted to do anyway.

Mike knew how to play the fame game. He knew how to get attention and cause controversy, in fact that may have been his downfall. He didn't know when to stop all that.