We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.

Posts tagged “Death of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson – Who is it

Haven’t we all sold ourselves to the external? Seeking gratification. in the form of materialism and outside acceptance,  when all along Love was always there? Yes, in fear and ignorance, we’ve all been made to be “whores” to the outside, to the “system”, and forgotten the love that has always been within, the only thing that truly matters…


Michael Jackson Symbolism

What has Michael Jackson been trying to tell us all these years? Through his music, art, speeches, etc?    This series of videos does a great job of explaining.  There was more to Michael then just music and entertainment; he tried to awaken us to the reality of our world.  Most of us remained blind, until now….

I’m only posting a few of the videos, but for the whole series, go to the youtube channel  http://www.youtube.com/user/jameshetfield007

Yes, these videos have a heavy Muslim message, but I always say “keep an open, question everything, research, research, research…”  Let go of all your prejudices and view things in an objective fashion. It’s the only way you’ll find the truth…


Remember Michael’s Message—- “celebrating” someone’s death is not it…

Michael Jackson, Marvin Gaye, Bob Marley are but a few of the artists CRYING out to the world to open their eyes , see the truth, and CHANGE things.  There are no excuses EVER for war, assassinations (and then gloating about them), hunger, etc…   We have the power to change things, through LOVE, pure and simple…


PROSECUTOR’S GUIDE TO CONRAD MURRAY LIES

CPR must always be performed on a firm surface.  NO bed is firm enough. A CARDIOLOGIST would know that.  The only time you put your hand behind on a patient’s back and do compressions with the other hand is if you’re performing CPR on a neonate (and a small one, at that), NO ONE ELSE. Basic knowledge that any person, but especially a cardiologist, would know.


Jermaine Jackson On Piers Morgan

One thing I must make clear, neither Jermaine or this journalist has the expertise to talk about the effects of propofol. ONLY an anesthesiologist, who works with this drug, does.  Even  doctors of other specialties do NOT have the same expertise as an anesthesioligist.  That’s why they’re consulted to be present during the administration of propofol and other anesthetics during medical procedures in controlled environments.

 


PEOPLE VS. DR. CONRAD MURRAY Ex-Patient: Dr. Murray BLEW ME OFF

Hhhmmm, he can perform invasive procedures like inserting stents in the main blood vessels of the heart, but does NOT know CPR????  LOL, Yeah, right…

btw, cardiac arrest can happen often  in this type of procedure (PTCA), one would think Murray had to have had performed CPR several times in the course of his career…

Robert Russell — Dr. Conrad Murray’s Former Patient Testifies
Updated 9/30/11 at 9:30AM

0930_robert_russelDr. Conrad Murray‘s former patientRobert Russell testified today … he felt like Murray abandoned him when the doctor suddenly closed his Las Vegas practice to care for Michael Jackson.

Russell claims Murray operated on him twice in March and April 2009 to install several stents in his heart after he suffered a heart attack — and Russell was pleased with the results.

But Russell claims it went downhill from there — when Murray canceled two follow-up appointments in June 2009.

Russell claims Murray finally called and left a voicemail at 11:49 AM on June 25th — about 30 minutes before Alberto Alvarez dialed 911– explaining he would be leaving the country .

After Murray canceled the appointments, Russell claims he never saw the doctor again.

http://www.tmz.com/category/conrad-murray-trial/?adid=conrad_murray_trial#.Toa797KlstU
0104_break_mj


Michael Jackson Case—Medical Equipment Expert Testifies

Weird because I’ve never seen a pulse oximeter without an alarm.  I even went to the Nonin website, and can’t find anything that says “no alarms“.  You can choose the option to silence alarms, but as far as I know, they all come with alarms.   But this is just another “weird” thing in this whole case.  Propafol (and getting it in mid day, no less), cardiologist that doesn’t know CPR and who calls 911 a long time after MJ is unconscious, security cameras that disappear (has anyone heard what happened to them?), LA airport that closes just at the right time that day, etc, so why WOULD”T they have a pulse oximeter without an alarm? LOL    My common sense tells me this is all too fishy to be real. Way too weird!
0930_small_johnson_courtThe guy who manufactures the medical device that Dr. Conrad Murray allegedly snapped onto Michael Jackson‘s finger — after Alberto Alvarez called 911 — claims it was the wrong device to monitor MJ.

It’s called a pulse oximeter — and Bob Johnson of Nonin Medical Equipment testified today … Murray was using the wrong model for the job.

Bob claims the model Murray used to monitor MJ had no alarm — so if anything went wrong, Murray wouldn’t know.

http://www.tmz.com/category/conrad-murray-trial/?adid=conrad_murray_trial#.Toa797KlstU


MIchael Jackson is Alive: Born Again on June 25th

And what do you “see” in this video?  Or “hear”?


Dr. Murray’s Medical Shingle Hangin’ By a Thread

1/12/2011 4:20 PM PST by TMZ Staff

Conrad Murray‘s medical career may not have flatlined — TMZ has learned the medical boards in Texas and Nevada will not automatically suspend his license just because a California judge did.

0112_conrad_murray_TMZ_EX

Sources connected with the Texas Medical Board and the Nevada State Board of Medical Examinerstell TMZ they are weighing their options regarding the suspension of Murray’s medical license.

Murray’s California medical license was suspended yesterday as a condition of bail in his ongoing Michael Jackson manslaughter case.

But we’re told … because a judge suspended Murray’s license and not the California Medical Board — TX and NV don’t feel compelled to follow suit and issue suspensions in their states.

We’re told Murray’s attorney, Charles Peckham, has been in talks with the NV med board and is making contact with TX as well — but no word on when a final decision will be made.


Dr. Conrad Murray’s Medical License SUSPENDED

Dr. Conrad Murray‘s medical license has just been suspended.

0111_conrad_murray_bn
Judge Michael Pastor just ordered the suspension, as a condition to Dr. Murray’s bail in the Michael Jackson manslaughter case.

The Medical Board of California has asked the court twice before to yank Murray’s license, to no avail.  But minutes after ordering Murray to stand trial, Judge Pastor granted the request.

Dr. Murray has 24 hours to notify the medical boards in Texas and Nevada of Judge Pastor’s decision.

It’s a devastating blow to Murray, because he needs to practice to make enough money to pay his legal team.  Murray’s team believes the move is designed to take away his right to defend himself in the manslaughter trial.


Dr. Conrad Murray Ordered to Stand Trial

Dr. Conrad Murray was just ordered to stand trial in the death of Michael Jackson.

Conrad Murray Trial

Judge Michael Pastor ruled there is sufficient evidence to warrant a manslaughter trial.

In his closing statement, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren told the judge, “It was not Michael Jackson’s time to go.  Michael Jackson is not here today because of the negligence and reckless acts of Dr. Murray.”

Walgren said Murray cared more about covering up evidence than helping MJ.

Judge Pastor’s ruling follows a 6-day preliminary hearing in which more than 20 witnesses were called.

If convicted Murray faces a maximum of 4 years in prison.

UPDATE:  Murray’s lawyer, Ed Chernoff, tells TMZ, “We are disappointed but not surprised.  We knew we would be in trial and that’s where we’re going to end up.”


Court Day #6—Murray Prelim—TMZ

1/11/2011 2:57 PM PST by TMZ Staff

Prosecution Rests in Murray Case

0111_murray_jackson_prelimThe prosecution has ended its case in the Conrad Murray preliminary hearing after 6 days of testimony.

The defense filed a motion to dismiss, which is routine.  It will almost certainly be denied.

Judge Michael Pastor has taken a recess.  It’s virtually certain that Dr. Murray will be ordered to stand trial.

The Deputy Attorney General who represents the Medical Board of California is in the courtroom.  We’re told he will ask the judge to suspend Murray’s license to practice medicine.

Murray Commited Homicide Even If MJ Injected Himself
Updated 1/11/11 at 10:57am

0111-conrad_prelimA doctor for the L.A. County Coroner’s Office just testified … even if Michael Jackson injected himself with the fatal dose of Propofol, Dr. Murray is still guilty of homicide.

Dr. Christopher Rogers testified he believes Dr. Murray had no business administering Propofol outside a hospital setting, particularly without the appropriate medical equipment.  Rogers said given Michael’s dependence on Propofol and the fact that Murray left him alone in the room with access to the drug constitutes a homicide.
0104_break_mj
Coroner Doesn’t Believe Dr. Murray’s Story
Updated 1/11/11 at 10:26am

0111_jackson_prelimA doctor for the L.A. County Coroner’s Office testified he doesn’t believe Dr. Murray only gave Michael Jackson 25mg of Propofol.

Without saying Murray lied to cops during his interview two days after MJ died, Dr. Christopher Rogers testified if Murray were correct about the 25mg of Propofol, Jackson would have awakened after 3 to 5 minutes of sleep.

Rogers also testified he doesn’t believe Jackson swallowed Propofol.  The defense laid the groundwork for this theory yesterday, because small amounts of the drug were found in Jackson’s stomach.

And Rogers said he believes it’s inappropriate to use Propofol for insomnia and that Murray’s care was “substandard.”


Court Day #5—Murray Prelim—TMZ

Murray to Cops:  Michael Begged Me For Propofol
Updated 1/10/11 at 4:55pm

0110_michael_jackson_conrad_murray_prelimIn some of the most dramatic testimony to date, an LAPD detective testified Dr. Conrad Murray told him Michael Jackson “begged” him for Propofol shortly before he died.

LAPD Robbery Homicide Detective Orlando Martinez testified about an interview he conducted with Dr. Murray two days after MJ died.  Martinez said Murray told him the night before Jackson died he was having trouble sleeping.  Murray said he was trying to ween Jackson off of Propofol — a drug he was giving MJ almost every night for two months.

Murray told Martinez he was giving Jackson a variety of other drugs, beginning sometime after 1AM, to no avail.  Jackson then said if he didn’t get to sleep he would cancel rehearsal.

Murray said he was feeling “pressure” from MJ to give him something to help him sleep, and Jackson was begging for Propofol.  Murray claims he gave him a reduced dose, with Michael’s help.  As TMZ has reported many times before, Murray said MJ liked to “push in the Propofol himself and that other doctors let him do it.”

Murray went to the bathroom for 2 minutes, came back and claims he saw MJ wasn’t breathing.
0104_break_mj
010311_Timelinepromo-2
0104_break_mj
Defense: Michael Jackson Drank Propofol
Updated 1/10/11 at 2:53pm

0107_propofol_prelimMichael Jackson may have drank himself to death by consuming a juice box laced with Propofol — at least that’s what Conrad Murray‘s defense team suggested in court today.

Murray’s attorney, J. Michael Flanagan, was questioning a Senior Criminalist from the L.A. County Coroner’s Office about the 70 grams of fluid found in MJ’s stomach at the time of the autopsy … fluid that tested positive for traces of Propofol.

Flanagan noted the presence of a juice box on MJ’s nightstand … and asked if it had been tested for Propofol … raising the possibility that MJ was sippin’ on the anesthetic shortly before he died.

The criminalist testified he had not tested the juice box.

So what’s Flanagan’s point? He might be suggesting that MJ was secretly self-administering his Propofol … which would support Murray’s defense theory that MJ accidentally caused his own overdose.
0104_break_mj
Dr. Murray Ordered a Boatload of Propofol for MJ
Updated 1/10/11 at 12:05pm

0110_murray_vid_launch_prelim_3A pharmacist Dr. Murray used to order Propofol just testified the doctor ordered box after box of the drug in the two months before Michael Jackson’s death.

Tim Lopez, a pharmacist at Applied Pharmacy Servicesin Las Vegas, said beginning on April 6, 2009, Dr. Murray began ordering large quantities of Propofol. On that date, he ordered 10 single dose vials.

Murray, who had the drugs sent to his girlfriend’s Santa Monica home where he was living, also ordered boxes of the drug on April 28 — 4 boxes and each of the boxes had 10 100ml vials.

Later that month, Murray ordered 20 vials of midazolam and 20 vials of lorazepam.

On May 12, Murray ordered 4 boxes of Propofol, along with 2 trays of midazolam.

On June 10, Murray ordered 4 boxes of Propofol, and 2 20ml Propofol.

In all, Murray ordered 255 vials of Propofol in the two months — including 130 vials of Propofol in 100ml doses and another 125 vials of Propofol in 20ml vials.
0104_break_mj
Judge: Murray’s iPhone Admissible as Evidence

Updated 1/10/11 at 10:35am

Judge Michael Pastor ruled this morning that recently obtained data from Dr. Conrad Murray‘s iPhone is admissible as evidence.

Murray’s attorney, Ed Chernoff, referenced the items in question … a few voicemails and 12 screenshots.  He was not more specific.

The prosecution has used phone records to create a timeline showing what Murray did the day Michael Jackson died.


Dr. Conrad Murray — Winning ’em Over One at a Time

Yeah, full of hot air all right, LOL

1/9/2011 1:00 AM PST by TMZ Staff

Dr. Conrad Murray has a bit of a PR problem these days — and since people don’t just let you walk up and kiss their baby anymore, he did the next best thing … he bought a little girl a balloon.

0108_conrad_murray_video_ex_launch
A TMZ photog was out in Santa Monica on his night off when he caught a glimpse of Murray on the Third Street Promenade. Murray was walking along when he spotted the cute kid and the balloon animal practitioner … and made his way over.

Murray ponied up the few bucks for the little girl’s balloon and one for himself — it looked like he took the SpongeBob one.

If things don’t go Murray’s way next week, he may want to move into a pineapple under the sea.


Court Day 4—Murray Prelim—TMZ

1/7/2011 3:10 PM PST by TMZ Staff

Murray Lawyer Paints Picture — Michael Killed Himself

0104_michael_jackson_07_prelimDr. Conrad Murray’s lawyers  laid the groundwork for their defense — Michael Jackson delivered the fatal shot of Propofol to himself.

Murray’s lawyer, J. Michael Flanagan, asked Coroner investigator Elissa Fleak two questions  1) Was the IV bag fingerprinted? and 2) Was it possible for Jackson to reach the syringes from the bed?

As TMZ first reported, the defense will argue that Jackson became frustrated when he couldn’t sleep that day and gave himself the fatal shot of Propofol when Murray was out of the room.

Coroner Found A Dozen Bottles of Propofol
Updated 1/07/11 at 3:10pm

0107_propofol_prelimAn investigator for the L.A. County Coroner’s Office testified her office found 12 bottles of Propofol in Michael Jackson’s home.

Elissa Fleak says two bottles were in the bedroom where MJ died, and the other 10 were in a nearby closet.

One of the Propofol bottles found in the room by the nightstand was empty.

In addition to the Propofol, investigators found a pharmacy full of drugs, including lorazepam, diazepam, temazepam, trazodone, flomax, clonazepam, tizanidine, hydrocodone, lidocaine and benoquin.

Also found … used syringes and needles, as well as a box of unopened hypodermic needles, IV catheters and vials.

Murray’s Other GF Describes Deliveries, No Mention of Propofol

Updated 1/07/11 at 12:15pm

0107_nicole_alverez_smallpost_wennDr. Conrad Murray‘s baby mama, Nicole Alvarez, testified today about multiple mystery packages Murray had sent to her Los Angeles apartment between April and June 2009.

Although the contents of the packages were not mentioned in court, TMZ first reported back in October 2009 … those packages were shipped from Murray’s pharmacy in Las Vegas and contained Propofol.

Alvarez was also one of the people that received a phone call from Dr. Murray on the day Jackson died — but the prosecution did not question her about the call. Murray’s team declined to cross-examine.
0104_break_mj
010311_Timelinepromo-2
0104_break_mj
SMOKING GUN IN MICHAEL JACKSON’S DEATH
Updated 1/07/11 at 10:35am

0104_conrad_08_prelim_GettyA girlfriend of Dr. Conrad Murray‘s at the time ofMichael Jackson‘s death just established for prosecutors Murray waited around 25 minutes after noticing MJ was lifeless before calling 911.

Sade Anding — who was in Houston the day MJ died — testified she received a call from Murray at around 12:30 PM.   It’s unclear if she was referring to Pacific or Central time.

But there is only one call in the phone records from Murray to Sade, and that’s at 11:51 AM PT.

Sade says Murray was asking her how she was doing and she started talking about her day.  She spoke for a few minutes and realized Murray wasn’t on the phone anymore.

Sade then said she heard commotion, as if the phone was in his pocket, and heard “coughing and voices.”

Sade estimates the entire call lasted 5 minutes.

The 911 call wasn’t made until 12:21 PM PT, which means — if Murray did indeed first realize MJ was in distress at around 11:55 AM PT — there was a long delay in sounding the alarm.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/04/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-preliminary-hearing-trial-witness-propofol-death/#continued


Court Day 3—Murray Prelim—TMZ

People vs. Dr. Conrad Murray

1/6/2011 2:45 PM PST by TMZ Staff

UCLA Docs — Michael Was DOA

0106_UCLA_altTwo doctors from the UCLA Medical Center testifiedMichael Jackson was dead on arrival, yet Dr. Murray told them “not to give up easily and try to save the patient.”

Dr. Richelle Cooper testified when Jackson arrived at UCLA there was “no signs of life.”

Dr. Cooper added Murray was not forthcoming about the drugs administered to MJ.   Cooper says Murray copped to giving Michael lorazepam, but made no mention of Propofol.

And this was interesting.  Cooper says MJ weighed 136 lbs.

Dr. Thao Nguyen testified Dr. Murray denied giving Michael any sedatives or narcotics, other than the lorazepam.

Phone Company — Murray Called Everyone BUT 911
Updated 1/06/11 at 2:45pm

Two reps from the phone company testified in the hours surrounding the revelation that Michael Jacksonwas lifeless in bed, Murray was texting and calling lots of people, but never called 911.
0106_conrad_alt
The records show Murray was sending and receiving multiple texts.  Two particularly interesting ones at 12:03 and 12:04 PM … the person Murray was texting was in Texas.

It’s unclear if the texts had anything to do with the two women in Murray’s office who went to a storage facility to retrieve boxes.

Murray also sent data at 12:15 and 12:18 and another text at 12:53.

Murray also called a number of people, including his girlfriend, Nicole Alvarez, but the only record shows 1:08 PM.  This is inconsistent with what law enforcement tells TMZ — that he was on the phone with Alvarez just after 12 noon and when Murray realized MJ was in distress he dropped the phone.
0104_break_mj
EMT: Murray Denied Giving MJ Drugs
Updated 1/06/11 at 10:35am

Another paramedic testified … Dr. Conrad Murray denied giving Michael Jackson drugs as the singer lay lifeless in his bedroom.0106_MJ-Post

Martin Blount said when he walked into MJ’s room Murray was sweating profusely.  Blount says Murray told EMTs he waited only one minute before calling 911.

But another paramedic testified earlier he believed Murray waited between 20 minutes to an hour to call 911.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/04/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-preliminary-hearing-trial-witness-propofol-death/#continued


COURT – DAY 1 Murray Prelim

Green comments are mine
04/01/11

Judge :- Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor
Prosecutor: Assistant Deputy D.A. David Walgren
Defence: Ed Chernoff

Family attending:-
Katherine Jackson
LaToya Jackson
Jackie Jackson

Witnesses called:-
Kenny Ortega (Producer/Director – This Is It)
Michael Amir( Michael’s Bodyguards)
Faheen Muhammed (Michael’s Bodyguard)

Court convened at 9am.

Reports have Murray as usual been ‘shepharded’ in through the back door and arriving in court looking remarkably relaxed – as he continued to be throughout the whole proceedings.
Fans remained outside behaved in a respectful and dignified manner as the family filed in.

Deputy District Attorney, David Walgren said he will rely on Murray’s statements to police, as well as text messages, phone records and expert testimony to show the doctor should stand trial.

He said evidence will show Murray waited at least 21 minutes to call 911 and ordered a bodyguard to help him clean up evidence before summoning help. In the most favorable scenario, Walgren said, Murray waited at least nine minutes before calling paramedics.

He faulted the doctor in opening statements for performing CPR on Jackson with one hand on his bed, rather than a hard surface as is generally required.

He also stated that “ fabulous” rehearsal two days before his death and was set to go to London in a few days.”

Walgren also plans to call several experts whom he said would testify, “there are a number of actions displayed by Dr. Murray that show an extreme deviation from the standard of care.”

The prosecutor also said he would call a bodyguard who would testify that Murray ordered him to collect items from Jackson’s bedroom

The first witness the prosecution called was “This Is It” producer/director Kenny Ortega

KENNY ORTEGA

Choreographer Kenny Ortega testified that he was summoned to Jackson’s home a day after letting the superstar skip rehearsal because he seemed sick.

Dr. Conrad Murray and others suggested Jackson should not have been sent home because he was physically and emotionally fine,Ortega testified, adding he was told not to try to be Jackson’s doctor or psychiatrist.

Later in the hearing, Ortega testified that Jackson had gone home early from rehearsals on June 19.

“He didn’t look well at all,” Ortega testified. “Michael was chilled and soft-spoken. … He wasn’t in the kind of condition to be at rehearsal.”

Ortega also said Jackson appeared lost.

“It was scary. I couldn’t put my finger on it,” Ortega said. “I said, ‘Michael, is this the best place for you to be or do you want to go home and be with your family?’ He said, ‘Would you be OK with that?’ I said, ‘OK,’ and he left.”

The next morning, Ortega said, he was called to Jackson’s home, where he was confronted by Murray, Jackson, the star’s manager Frank DiLeo, and Randy Phillips, head of AEG, the company producing Jackson’s “This is It” comeback tour.

“It quickly became clear that the meeting was about me,” Ortega said. “Dr. Murray was upset that I had sent Michael home the night before and didn’t allow him to rehearse.”  (Really, the DOCTOR was upset MJ was sent home??? LOL  Circus…)

Ortega, who later directed the Jackson concert film “This Is It” based on rehearsal footage, said the pop star was in good spirits throughout most of the rehearsals and was excited about the progress being made in preparation for the London shows.

He recalled his last conversation with Jackson.

“Michael said, ‘I know you love me and care about me. You don’t have to worry about me. I’m fine,’ and he gave me a big hug,” Ortega said.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Ed Chernoff asked Ortega if he had ever seen anyone having withdrawals from drugs, and the witness said he had not.

MICHAEL AMIR WILLIAMS

Another witness, Jackson’s personal assistant Michael Amir Williams, described Murray calling him on the day the superstar died and frantically asking him to get help from bodyguards for Jackson, who was in a bedroom

Williams stated he received a frantic voicemail from Murray at 12:13 PM on June 25, 2009. Williams said Murray’s VM said, “Where are you? Get here right away, hurry.”

Murray told him the singer had a “bad reaction” and that immediate help was needed, but didn’t ask him to call 911, Williams said.

Williams says he then called Alberto Alvarez, MJ’s security guard, and asked Alvarez to walk to the front door. Williams says he heard Murray’s voice in the background, then Alvarez hung up

Williams added that staff were never allowed upstairs.

Williams described the chaotic scene at the mansion and hospital and recalled the heartbreaking moment when DiLeo told Jackson’s children their father was dead. Williams said he and Murray and everyone else were crying. He also added that Murray added to the confusion by immediately contradicting Dileo.

He went on to say that at one point just after Michael had been pronounced dead, Murray insisted to Williams that he was going to go back to the house to get some ‘cream’ that “Michael wouldn’t want people to see”. Williams immediately contacted staff at the house to ‘lock it down’. Also whilst chaos reigned at the hospital the Murray was requesting Williams to get him food!

FAHEEN MUHAMMED

One of Michael’s other bodyguards, said he and and guard Alberto Alvarez saw Murray crouched next to Jackson’s bed “in a panicked state asking, ‘Does anyone know CPR?'”

“I looked at Alberto because we knew Dr. Murray was a heart surgeon, so we were shocked,” Muhammed said

When defense lawyer Ed Chernoff asked if perhaps Murray was only asking for help because he was tired, Muhammed said “The way that he asked it is as if he didn’t know CPR.”

Jackson appeared to be dead at that time, with his “eyes open and his mouth open, just laying there,”

Prosecutor David Walgren earlier said that Murray used “ineffectual CPR with one hand while the patient was prone on a soft bed.” Two hands with the patient prone on a hard surface is the proper method, he said.

Muhammed, the third witness on the opening day of the hearing, said he never saw Murray performing CPR on Jackson before paramedics arrived and carried him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center.

Jackson’s two oldest children, Prince and Paris, were at their father’s bedroom door as the drama unfolded just after noon on June 25, 2009, Muhammed said.

“Paris was on the floor on her hands and knees and she was just crying,” he said.

The children would learn two hours later that their father had died when Dr. Murray and Jackson manager Frank Dileo talked to them in a hospital room.

The session ended at approx 16.30pm. To be reconvened on 5/1/11 at 09.30am

Travis Payne was also present.

 

http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=17015


Michael Jackson hearing: Family members weep as more details emerge on pop star’s death

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/michael-jackson-hearing-more-details-on-day-of-pop-stars-death.html

Green comments are mine.

January 5, 2011 | 12:55 pm
Michael Jackson's brother Jackie and their mother, Katherine, arrive at the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles for an involuntary manslaughter hearing for the pop star's personal physician.

With Michael Jackson lying lifeless in a bed, his doctor ordered a security guard to remove an IV bag of medication resembling the anesthetic blamed in the pop star’s death before calling for an ambulance, the guard testified Wednesday.  (Right. Like I’d trust ANYBODY to remove evidence of MY guilt. Don’t buy it…)

Alberto Alvarez told a Superior Court judge deciding whether there is enough evidence to try Dr. Conrad Murray for involuntary manslaughter that the physician first told him the singer needed an ambulance urgently, but then instructed him to gather up medical vials and an IV bag in larger bags. (PROPOFOL in a HOME would be more then sufficient evidence of manslaughter)

“I noticed that inside (the IV bag), there was like a bottle … and then I noticed that at the bottom of the bag there was a milk-like substance,” Alvarez testified. The surgical anesthetic propofol –- which the coroner said caused Jackson’s death — is a white liquid administered intravenously.

Murray, 57, acknowledged giving the singer propofol as a sleep aid in an interview with police, authorities have said.

Testifying on the second day of the preliminary hearing, Alvarez offered the closest view yet of Murray’s behavior after Jackson stopped breathing in a bedroom of his rented Holmby Hills mansion.

The first security guard on the scene, Alvarez said that when he arrived in the bedroom, Murray was doing chest compressions on Jackson in the bed with one hand.“He said, ‘We need to get him a hospital. We need to get an ambulance,’” Alvarez quoted Murray as telling him. 

He said that when he asked Murray what had happened, the doctor said Jackson “had a bad reaction.”

But soon after that, Murray grabbed a handful of medical vials from Jackson’s nightstand and told Alvarez to place them in a bag, the guard testified. He repeated the instruction for the IV bag containing the white substance, but did not tell him to remove another IV bag, he said.

Only then, Alvarez testified, did the doctor order him to call for an ambulance.  (So Alvarez is quite stupid? He wouldn’t call for an ambulance himself? Needed instructions to do so? Again, I don’t buy it.)

Paramedics and emergency room doctors are expected to testify later in the hearing that Murray concealed his use of propofol from them as they worked to save Jackson’s life.

Prosecutors have said other medical experts will testify that Murray did not have proper monitoring equipment for administering propofol, a drug that can suppress the respiratory system.

Alvarez said he did not see any heart or blood pressure monitors in the room, but Murray clipped a monitoring device to Jackson’s finger after paramedics were called.

Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren played the 911 call for Judge Michael Pastor.

When Alvarez told the emergency operator that the stricken man’s personal physician was there, the operator expressed surprise.

“Oh, you have a doctor there?” the operator said, adding the doctor would be the “higher authority.”

Alvarez said before they arrived, Murray asked him and another security guard if they knew how to perform CPR. Prosecutors have said Murray was doing it incorrectly by using one hand and on a soft mattress.   (yeah, OK, a cardiologist, no less.  I don’t believe a word of any of this. Doesn’t make sense.)

Alvarez said the 911 operator told them to move Jackson to the floor to administer CPR. There, Alvarez said, he did chest compressions while Murray gave the singer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

“After the second time, he gave a breath, he came up and said, ‘You know, this is the first time I give mouth to mouth, but I have to do it, he’s my friend,'” Alvarez said.

In the spectator’s gallery, Janet Jackson, the singer’s sister, shook her head and held the bridge of her nose with her fingers. Jackson family members and friends filled an entire row in the courtroom for the dramatic testimony.

His mother, Katherine, dabbed away tears as Alvarez recalled Jackson’s daughter, Paris, rushing into the bedroom where her father lay stricken and screaming, “Daddy!”

Alvarez, his own voice choking with emotion, recalled Murray shouting, “Get them out! Get them out! Don’t let them see their father like this.”

The cardiologist, who was tending to Jackson during a comeback attempt, has pleaded not guilty and said through his lawyers that he did nothing that should have caused Jackson’s death.(Giving propofol in a non-monitored environment , however small the does, CAN cause death. You never know how the patient will react to it, so you have to have the patient monitored at all times. In a HOSPITAL!)

Under cross-examination, Alvarez acknowledged he had not told police in two initial interviews that Murray had ordered him to remove potential evidence.

“You didn’t think it was suspicious?” asked defense lawyer Ed Chernoff.

“Apparently not, sir,” Alvarez said.

“You thought he was packing up to go to the hospital, right?” the lawyer asked.

“Yes, sir,” Alvarez replied.

Chernoff also questioned Alvarez about his relationship with the Jackson family, which briefly employed him as a guard for the late singer’s children, and his discussions with other Jackson staffers, with whom he shares an attorney.

Alvarez acknowledged that he had refused to speak to a defense investigator who had sought to interview him, but that in a police interview he had said he might sell his story to the media at a later date.  (yeah, MONEY….)


Court- Day 2— MURRAY’S PRELIM-TMZ—Jan 5, 2011

People vs. Dr. Conrad Murray

1/5/2011 4:35 PM PST by TMZ Staff

EMT:  Murray Wouldn’t Accept That Michael Was Dead

An EMT continued testifying after a recess, stating all of the emergency workers at Michael Jackson’s house knew the singer was dead, but Dr. Murray wouldn’t “call it.0105_michael_jackson_ambulance_2

Richard Senneff testified about facts that TMZ has been reporting for more than a year — that when paramedics arrived at MJ’s house, there was no sign of life and no chance of revival.  Nevertheless, Senneff testified Dr. Murray claimed to feel a pulse and, as the senior medical person on scene, refused to pronounce MJ dead.

Murray ordered the EMTs to take MJ to the hospital.  Senneff said the ride was “unbelievable … like the Rose Parade.  People running down the street, taking pictures, random cars passing the ambulance.  It was insane.”

Once at UCLA, Senneff said Murray was “spinning … moving around, nervous, sweating, multitasking.”

On cross examination, Ed Chernoff got Senneff to admit … Jackson’s skeletal, frail frame, along with his black/bluish feet, were signs of a drug addict.

EMT Testifies MJ Already Dead … Murray Mum on Propofol
Updated 1/05/11 at 3:03pm 

0105_michael_jacksonAn EMT who arrived at Michael Jackson’s house 4 minutes after the 911 call says Michael was dead when he arrived, and it looked like he had been dead for a long time before Dr. Conrad Murray called 911.

Richard Senneff testified when he arrived at MJ’s house and saw MJ, he looked like a hospice patient — extremely frail.

Senneff says he believes Murray must have waited at least 20 minutes before calling 911, based on the condition of the body.  MJ’s EKG was flatlined.

And Senneff said, when he asked Murray if MJ had been taking meds, all Murray volunteered was lorazepam (Ativan).  Murray never uttered a peep about Propofol.

Murray told Senneff Jackson had been “dehydrated.”
0104_break_mj
MJ Cook to Prince: “Something May be Wrong with Your Dad”

Updated 1/05/11 at 2:58pm

0105_kai_chaseKai Chase, Michael Jackson’s cook, testified after Michael stopped breathing, Dr. Murray came downstairs in a panic and summoned Prince … and Chase told the boy, “Something may be wrong with your dad.”

Chase says it was evident there was an emergency and the housekeepers started crying.

Chase had testified MJ was on an extremely healthy diet, dining on seared ahi tuna salad for lunch the day before he died.

She found it odd that she prepared Tuscan white bean soup for MJ and Murray the night before Jackson died, but when she came to work the next morning the soup was untouched.
0104_break_mj
010311_Timelinepromo-2
0104_break_mj
MJ’s Security Guard: Murray Said Hide The Bottles
Updated 1/05/11 at 10:55am

Alberto Alvarez, a bodyguard who says he was MJ’s Director of Logistics, testified Dr. Conrad Murray instructed him to remove bottles from Michael’s bedroom — along with an IV bag with a milky-white substance, before calling 9110105_alberto_alavrez.

Alvarez says he walked into MJ’s bedroom sometime after 12:17 PM and saw Michael laying motionless.  He says Murray told him Michael had “an allergic reaction,” then ordered him to collect a bag of bottles and put them in a bag.

And this is big.  Alvarez says Murray then “instructed me to remove the IV bag from the IV stand.”

For the record, law enforcement believes the milky-white substance in the bag was Propofol.

Alvarez says there was a second IV bag — which we know contained saline — and Murray told him to leave it there.

Alvarez says only after the bottles and bag were collected did Murray tell him to call 911.

UPDATE:  During cross examination, Ed Chernoff, Murray’s lawyer, got Alvarez to admit he never told the cops about Murray ordering him to remove the bottles.  Alvarez also admitted he may sell his story.
0104_break_mj
Janet Jackson Arrives at Court
Updated 1/05/11 at 9:40am

0104_break_mj
MJ Bodyguard — Murray Asked, “Does Anyone Know CPR?”
Updated 1/04/11 at 2:55pm

0104_conrad_10_prelim_GettyFaheem Muhammad, one of Michael Jackson‘s bodyguards, just testified he was in Michael’s room after Murray noticed MJ stopped breathing. Faheem told the prosecutor, Murray was on his knees doing compressions on MJ in a panicked state, when he turned to Faheem and another bodyguard and asked, “Does anyone in the room know CPR?”

Faheem recalled how Prince and Paris were near the room and Paris was on her hands and knees crying.  The nanny took them away.

Faheem also said after Michael was pronounced dead at UCLA, Dr. Murray told him he was hungry and wanted to leave. Faheem said he told Murray to eat at the hospital, but Murray left.

On cross-examination, Ed Chernoff got Faheem to admit Murray spoke with MJ’s family and police before leaving.

0104_break_mj
Michael Jackson’s Assistant Testifies
Updated 1/03/11 at 12:30pm

Michael JacksonThe prosecution began to paint a picture of Dr. Conrad Murray’s reckless actions on the night MJ passed away … by calling to the stand the Jackson assistant Murray telephoned before he called 911.

Michael Amir Williams testified that he received a frantic voicemail from Murray at 12:13 PM on June 25, 2009. Williams said Murray’s VM said, “Where are you? Get here right away, hurry.”

Williams says he then called Alberto Alvarez, MJ’s security guard, and asked Alvarez to walk to the front door. Williams says he heard Murray’s voice in the background, then Alvarez hung up.

Williams said that later on at the hospital, Murray approached him and said Michael had some cream in his room that Murray knew MJ wouldn’t want the world to know about. Williams said he wanted someone to give him a ride back to MJ’s house to retrieve it.

Murray’s baby mama, Nicole Alvarez, was in court today — but ordered to return on Friday. Murray was on the phone with Alvarez when he realized MJ was in trouble.
0104_break_mj
Kenny Ortega Testifies
Updated 1/04/11 at 10:45am

0104_kenny_ortega_01_prelimKenny Ortega, MJ’s producer/director for “This Is It,” was the first to testify, stating just days before MJ died, Dr. Murray was upset that Kenny sent MJ home from rehearsal on June 19.  According to Ortega … Murray felt only he should make such decisions.

According to Ortega … Dr. Murray said during the June 20 meeting at MJ’s home that Michael was “physically and emotionally fine,” even though Ortega said MJ had the chills and was not well during the failed rehearsal the day before.

The June 20 meeting at MJ’s home is important for prosecutors, who claim it shows Murray did not care about MJ’s health.

And Ortega said June 23 and 24 were “two wonderful days of rehearsal” and that MJ was happy and healthy.  The point — that Jackson wasn’t in distress the day before he died, and it was the Propofol that did him in.

Ortega testified, “He didn’t look well at all. Michael was chilled and soft-spoken … He wasn’t in the kind of condition to be at rehearsal.”

During cross examination, Ortega denied he read Michael “the riot act” during the June 20 meeting.
0104_break_mj
DA Opening Statement: MJ Already Dead
Updated 1/04/11 at 10:15am

Los Angeles County Prosecutor David Walgren began to lay out the case against Dr. Conrad Murray … saying in his opening statement that Michael Jackson was dead even before paramedics got to MJ’s home.0105_michael_jackson_small

Walgren also told Judge Michael Pastor Murray tried to conceal the fact he had administered Propofol to Jackson — categorizing Murray’s actions as and “extreme deviation from the standard of care.”

Walgren said the evidence will show Murray ordered a bodyguard to help him clean up evidence and waited at least 20 minutes before he called 911. Once Jackson was taken to the hospital, Walgren said Murray still had not told anyone about the use of Propofol, saying, “Not a word was said about Propofol to the UCLA doctors.”

He also pointed out Murray performed CPR incorrectly — with one hand on his bed, rather than a hard surface.

Murray’s attorney, Ed Chernoff, declined to make an opening statement.

The first witness the prosecution will call is “This Is It” producer/director Kenny Ortega.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/01/04/michael-jackson-doctor-conrad-murray-preliminary-hearing-trial-witness-propofol-death/#continued

 

RECAP of TODAY

http://www.mj-777.com/?page_id=6911


Oprah and Katherine’s interview: my perceptions

FIRST VIDEO

The emotion on Katherine’s face DID get to me when she initially talked about her memories of MJ.

Here, again, there is the mention “he was a prankster”.  LMP also said the same thing to Oprah a few weeks ago.  Coincidence that we keep hearing he was a prankster???

“one day he just decided to get his nose done”….   Thought he’d fallen , breaking his nose, and then started the nose surgeries…   Inconsistencies…

It really irritates me how the questions about his surgeries and vitiligo keep being asked… enough already! And I wasn’t too thrilled that Katherine said his nose looked like a toothpick…  Wonder if there’s some message in that, though.

Dr. Murray told Katherine…. Even Oprah was surprised.  We’d heard Frank Dileo say it was him who told Katherine and the kids… which I admit, I found strange.  So obviously, someone is lying.

“No, he’s gone..” (to the airport?)   But still, the emotion in Katherine’s voice was quite touching…

 

 

 

SECOND VIDEO

Paris was saying: I want to go with you. I don’t want to be without you”  Go where???  I don’t mean to sound insensitive, because God knows, this was making me cry, but I question all choice of words…

Katherine heard that it was propofol right away… Interesting… (btw, they’re both pronouncing it wrong,lol)

Can’t stand when his “drug addiction” is brought up.  They’re persistent in making sure he has an image as a drug addict. And Katherine isn’t helping because she blatantly states she didn’t believe MJ when he said he wasn’t taking drugs. He may or may not have been on drugs, but enough already!

And of course, an interview wouldn’t be complete without talking about the molestation trials and whether he was guilty. He was INNOCENT, judged so by a juror of his peers!  Accept it and drop it!

Katherine cannot accuse Murray of murder because she isn’t convinced if it was intentional or accidental…  hhhmmmm  His family is saying “murder”, and Murray was the one that supposedly gave him the propafol, therefore one would assume he’s the murderer.   Again, there is much more to Murray then meets the eye.

The kids bonded instantly. She went out and bought tents for them to camp in the yard.  Wasn’t it the very next day that Katherine was photographed  buying camping gear??   the VERY NEXT DAY?   That’s what I call super adjustment!  Again, I’m not trying to be insensitive, but I am using my common sense…

THIRD VIDEO

Katherine filed for divorce TWICE, if what we heard is correct.  I get the feeling Joe was there to “protect” his brood.   His statement that Katherine is too trusting, just like Michael, made me think that.  I’m not going to even talk about the beating and all that stuff. I actually DO understand that , not that I condone it, but it was the way many families raised their kids.

 

I wish I could see clearer what are on the kids’ t-shirts…

Paris made sure Prince told Oprah what he wanted to do,lol “Produce movies and Direct”  (like their dad???lol)

Paris: I want to be an actress when I’m older.  I sometimes do improves…  (I bet you do! lol,  like ur doing right now?)

Prince: Coca Cola and Skittles

Paris: Snickers and soda (coca cola??)

(Can’t help but think there’s a message here , and it’s about Coke)

Vegas, Luxor Hotel… (Criss Angels “BeLIEve”?)

French Toast, like in the movie V for Vendetta….   message there?

 

 


-The American Public Must Demand Honest Journalism.-

Recent articles trying to keep tarnishing MJ’s name, due to the fact that his name is back on the school auditorium in that Gardner school, have left me livid.  I’d like people to consider the article below…

-by Forbes Everett Landis

–Do you think it is a good idea to keep silence about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream? Are we not forfeiting our children’s future into the hands of bullies? Is it not time for us to speak up about the damage opportunistic journalism is doing to our culture?–

Last year, the news of pop-superstar Michael Jackson’s premature death shocked the world. As I am a classical music fan, not a connoisseur of pop music or any of its stars, Jackson’s death did not immediately evoke any particular emotion in me. I just let it go.

But as the days went by, and as I passively soaked in more and more news reports on Jackson’s death, I began to feel increasingly uncomfortable. A man had passed away: What need was there for the media to so eagerly show humiliating images of how Jackson would have looked on his death-bed? I was prompted to look into the case more thoroughly.

After more than a year, although I am not a Michael Jackson fan, and despite my sometimes skeptical view of the frenzied remarks often made by Jackson’s hard-core followers, I feel the need to say this:

To keep the American dream alive for our children, we should stop abusing our talented and creative spirits out of jealousy and misunderstanding.

Jackson had to deal with the media condemning him as strange, weird, and even labeling him a freak, both figuratively and literally. My opinion about this is clear: Though at times, to subjective eyes, Jackson might have looked ‘different,’ half of this eccentricity was due to the fact that he was born to be an artist inevitably different from others because of his imaginative and creative nature, and half because he was forced into being so unconventional by a degree of media pressure few, if any, have ever experienced. Being different from others does not equate being harmful to others. As long as one does not violate others’ human rights, one has the right to be him or herself. In a society that prioritizes human rights and freedom, I find no justification for attacks on people who are perceived to be ‘different.’ These kinds of attacks are especially sordid when they involve the spreading of knowingly false rumors for financial gain. After Jackson’s acquittal on alleged child related charges in 2005, several journalists, such as Aphrodite Jones, came forward to confess that most of the media in attendance intentionally put objectivity aside in covering the Michael Jackson case by fragmenting the facts divulged in court, reporting only anti-Jackson information.

The human race has quite often owed its scientific or artistic progress to the “weird” and the “eccentric.” Let us consider, for example, Galileo Galilei, who was charged for openly discussing Copernican theory, a concept seen as sinful and roundly condemned at that time; later, of course, this theory went on to become the accepted standard of scientific understanding of the universe. We might also stop to consider how treasonable the very idea of democracy once was, how dangerous the aristocracy felt it to be; later, democracy became the world’s prevailing political philosophy. We can also remember that the concept of equality between : women and men, different ethnicities, or diverse religions, was derided when it emerged. Also, had she not thought differently from others, might Mother Teresa not have been a stay-at-home mom instead of traveling to India and risking her life for humanity?

Keeping the history of these exceptional ideas and people in mind, I can almost guarantee that if one had killed all the “weirdoes” among our Australopithecine ancestors 3.5 million years ago, our species might not have made it to the 21st Century. We might very well have just remained a much more primitive species, one without the use of fire and the wheel, let alone an orchestra, democracy, or computers. Is it not, after all, diversity that allows for evolution?

In other words, “weirdness” is sometimes the inevitable result of an exceptional imaginative ability that sees no boundaries in search of all the creative possibilities. As long as such individuals do us no harm, we should let them be. It is our duty to be respectful of those who are different not only because every human being is entitled to freedom, but also because diversity is at the root of human survival.

To those who regard Jackson’s soft voice altered skin tone or facial appearance as weird, I would simply say this: You are revealing your own nature, at best : narrow-minded or obtuse ; at worst – unkind and bigoted. Nobody’s holy scripture deems it acceptable to criticize the physical appearance of people who have contributed so generously to the voiceless.

To those who think that the Jackson’s spoken voice was peculiar, I would say that I see no significance in it. The spoken voice cannot be uncoupled from the singing voice that so many lauded. It might also be helpful for you to consider this information in order to broaden your understanding of the global context: there are countries where people respect those who speak softly, in a calm, non-aggressive manner. The American standard, where a loud voice seems necessary to assertiveness, is not the only standard in the world.

To those who criticize the ‘King of Pop’ for purchasing Neverland, I pose this question: Would you have survived without buying a Neverland-sized residential property if you were in reality never able to explore any place alone without being horded by an ensuing media and public frenzy whenever you stepped out of your front door? A huge residence with a vast garden might have been the only possible way for this worldwide megastar to relax and enjoy some fresh air without constant intrusion from the public. After all, Jackson earned his money though incredible hard work and a perfectionist work-ethic. In light of his Guinness record-making support of no less than 39 charities, it may very well be hypocritical to criticize his spending habits.

Having demonstrated that there is nothing inherently wrong with living unconventionally, the question now turns to whether or not Jackson ever harmed anyone with his behaviors. Here I will discuss the child related allegations leveled against him. —

In discussing the two instances of allegations Jackson was faced with, I would like to focus my attention primarily on the 1993 case due to the fact that the more recent (2003-2005) accusations ended with Jackson receiving a full legal acquittal on all counts, the extremely low credibility of the accuser’s mother playing a significant factor in this exoneration. In other words, Jackson was found not-guilty so I believe we must discount this case.

Considering that the laws of most U.S. states set down one’s right to sue anyone without being counter-sued solely in retribution for one’s lawsuit, this means that one can safely sue anyone they wants to sue. Thus, the extortion of popular and wealthy persons is an increasingly attractive ploy for those seeking a quick buck. Fast and easy money may once have come at a personal price, that being distrust from one’s community. But, with cities growing ever larger and more impersonal, an individual’s local reputation is of gradually thinning importance, resulting in more room for thievery. To some mischief minded, the risk of exposure as an extortionist might thus seem lower when compared to the potentially enormous financial benefits of a scam. As a result, a millionaire, especially one whose professional value is greatly magnified by popularity, is more vulnerable than ever. According to the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, in 1998, 71% of the abuse reports were revealed to be false or unfounded. The false accusation rate even rises to over 90% when a custody battle and money is involved (as was the case between the plaintiff’s parents in the 1993 allegations against Jackson, who was a friend of the child’s mother). In the 1993 case, the charges never went to trial but were settled out of court.

The record illustrates that the financially troubled accuser’s father had previously approached Jackson’s representatives with a monetary request well before he sued for the alleged molestation, demonstrating that he would have refrained from filing suit in exchange for money. Would any parent with real care for the well-being of his or her children make such a deal?

As evidence for my position, I present the recorded phone conversation in which the accuser’s father is heard to say that everything [is] going “according to a certain plan,” that he would win “big time” and that Jackson would be ruined forever. These words sounds far more like the words of a mercenary than those of a father concerned with justice for his son.

It should also be emphasized that Jackson was never indicted on the 1993 allegations, even after an intensive 13-month investigation including interviews with over 400 witnesses in and out of the country, extensive searches of his residential properties, and even a 25 minute full-body examination in which Jackson had every part of his body photographed, videotaped and examined. And in the six years before the statute of limitation had expired, no criminal charges were ever filed. After the District Attorney’s office spent millions of tax payer dollars in hot pursuit of the singer, had they found any evidence of molestation, they would have been certain to indict Jackson. Civil settlement does not prevent criminal indictment. The 13-year-old boy at the center of the allegations refused to testify criminally and his father, the main individual behind the allegations, committed suicide within months of Jackson’s death.

Having discussed the mischaracterization of what people might dismiss as “weird,” and having made plain the falsity of the allegations made against Jackson, accusations that in my view look suspiciously extortionate, I would now like to consider the moral impact that Jackson might have had on our society.

Regarding integrity, Jackson’s deeds and lifestyle, apart from the media’s fabricated stories, remained consistently appropriate. In fact, his decency made him look almost old-fashioned, even when he was young, when compared with many entertainers’ indulgences in sex, alcohol, and drugs. Interviews with Jackson indicated that he felt it highly inappropriate to remark publicly on his sexual life. This, as far as I am concerned, is an example of his dignity and modesty. However, this very reserve may ironically have fueled baseless speculation about Jackson’s sexual orientation. I wish to ask : is publicly questioning a person’s sexual life not way more inappropriate than that person’s choice of silence out of a desire for privacy regarding the same? The fact that Jackson was not involved in a multitude of sex scandals with women, a fact which should normally invite respect, seems unfairly to have been justification for the media to pathologize Jackson. It is beyond ridiculous to construct the lack of lasciviousness and scandal as itself scandalous and suspect.

Many people have also remarked that Jackson did not curse at all, especially when he was younger. Only after suffering numerous hate campaigns founded on falsehoods did he insert a very small amount of profanity into his songs, in response to a world which had betrayed him so deeply. Even then, his use of profanity stayed away from vitriolic attacks , but came across more as an artistic expression of deep anguish.

Jackson also faced many accusations regarding his appearance. But, turning this around, what might this suggest about those themselves who so scrutinized the way he looked? What does it say about their own biases ? And about the people who claimed to know details about every surgical procedure Jackson allegedly had, calling him a freak without even having seen him actually ?
After the 2003 allegations, the media repeatedly and mockingly displayed pictures of Jackson in an emaciated state, not out of concern for his well-being, but seemingly simply in order to label him a freak. It may very well be argued that Jackson was indeed beginning to look fairly thin, but doesn’t taking somebody’s tired physical appearance as direct evidence of inner abnormality only reveal our own superficiality ? Maybe , just maybe anyone else would have looked equally fatigued had they suffered the anguish of having to relentlessly fight vicious and false allegations.

On the topic of morality : Which is more admirable, giving people hope by regularly visiting and donating to hospitals and orphanages, or telling scandalous stories based on speculation or lies? Which is more despicable, pursuing an exceptionally rigorous dedication to artistic perfection, or giving in to jealousy and greed to bring down an artist? The tabloid press, of course, uses this strategy on most celebrities and public figures. One might argue that Michael Jackson had learned to use the press as cynically as it used him, that he , especially in the early days, once believed that “all publicity is good, even bad publicity,” because it keeps their names in people’s minds. One might even go so far as to say that Jackson purposely flaunted his eccentricities to generate press. He did, after all, have a fine artistic sense of the dramatic, with drama selling newspapers. And Jackson always managed to keep his fame burning bright, even when he was not producing any new songs. As elaborated below, my issue, however, is not with Jackson’s handling of the media. Rather it is about what the media’s handling of Jackson says about societal norms and ethics.

Critics have accused Jackson of not opposing false information adamantly enough. Pondering that charge, I suspect that having been abused by the media intrusiveness from his early days in the spotlight, Jackson might have come to feel vulnerable and victimized. Having been taught by his parent always to be nice to the media and to his fans, he might have felt he should not defend himself too vigorously for fear of losing his popularity. Furthermore, had Jackson taken the time to fight every rumor thrown his way, he would not have had time to be Michael Jackson, the artist as he did explain to a close friend. In the end ,we must ask ourselves, who is more faithful and true, a person who calls someone a freak without knowing him personally and without possessing any evidence of wrongdoing, or a person who shows patience and courage in the face of hostility and simply expresses who he really is by letting his work speak for itself?

Some might argue that the attacks Jackson had to suffer from the media and from consumers can be justified as a natural price to pay for the fame and fortune. No, I say. That is too high a price being charged from a human being. Those attacks had exceeded all justifiable limits, And I wish to note that he was not paid to endure pain, but for his relentless efforts and dedication to his craft.

We first explored “weirdness” as necessary and beneficial diversity, specifically addressing the fact that Jackson’s physical appearance and spoken pitch seem irrelevant to his achievements. We then found that allegations of unethical behavior on Jackson’s part were in truth baseless. Then we analyzed Jackson’s non-aggressive stance during TV interviews, not as demonstration of guilt but as a sign of decorum. Lastly, we found that the cost of fame seems an insufficient justification for the extraordinary personal attacks Jackson went through.

We will now consider the implications of the behavior of the media and the public during the course of Michael Jackson’s career. The American media have disgraced themselves by displaying to the world the schoolyard bullying of a talented and creative soul with great philanthropic achievements . Now consider how this public bullying of a legendary figure might present itself to a new generation of youth, how it might play out in their minds and affect their morale … Might this type of public bullying not discourage the youngsters of today from pursuing their own creativity, their own inner diversity, for fear that they themselves might incur such abuse ?

The coverage of Michael Jackson’s life poses among others, these questions to America: Does fulfilling the American Dream require that one subject oneself to unending media intrusion, to lies about oneself for the sake of selling newspapers, and where one unproven accusation is enough to be convicted in the court of national opinion ? Do you want your children to live in a world where pursuing the American Dream involves the risks of a nightmare of mistrust and abuse?

I refer again to the journalists who later admitted their purposely distorted biased reporting on the Michael Jackson child molestation cases. If we recall for a moment the enormous number of journalists who surrounded the Santa Barbara County courthouse, one can surmise that the handful of journalists who came clean about their deception make up only the tip of the iceberg.

I suspect that there were hundreds more who remained silent and who knowingly bent the truth to sell papers. I also suppose that there are thousands of people who, having received one-sided information, once believed Jackson to be a freakish criminal, but who, after his death and the revelation of new information, have come to see him just as one of us, a burdened human being and a caring parent, as well as a uniquely talented artist and a devoted philanthropist. Perhaps these now better-informed members of the public have come to doubt the veracity of the media itself, not just when it comes to Michael Jackson, but in general.

I speculate that there is a pervasive notion that it is safer to say nothing when it comes to Michael Jackson for fear of being promptly stigmatized. However, we need to address the implications of such silent behavior. What does our silence about the attacks on one of the most visible achievers of the American Dream say? If we play it safe, we are forfeiting our children’s future into the hands of bullies. It is time for us to speak up about the damage opportunistic journalism is doing to our culture. As Edmund Burke once penned, “all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

 

Article:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Does-American-Dream-Have-to-Die-With-Michael-Jackson


Talking with Charles Thomson about Recent Divisive Events in the MJ Community


A while back, Extreme Michael Jackson was fortunate enough to be able to talk with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson. For those unaware of recent divisive events in the MJ community, Mr. Thomson has received an unfortunate hazing from bloggers who

have somehow decided he is involved in various conspiracies involving Michael Jackson.  There has been a flurry of unjustified misinformation based on diddly squat.

Some of Charles’ audience has decided he is a fanatical, delusional MJ fan defending a monster; others have decided he is not fan enough. The truth is that Charles never represented himself as either- his job as a journalist is to remain objective, have his own opinion when appropriate, and to uncover the facts about whatever stories he is working on.  Since music writing is his niche, he ended up writing about Jackson. Since the facts all point to Jackson’s innocence in the awful scandals he endured, Charles wrote about that. Since Charles is a professional journalist whose job it is to uncover deeper layers of information, he was involved with making Jackson’s FBI files public. Those files clarified further how distorted the media made the facts, and point further to the complete absolution of all charges against Michael Jackson. For some reason, Charles has become the victim of malicious accusations regardless of the laudable services he has done in the name of truth.

Since I did not fully understand exactly what has been going on, or why, I decided to talk with Charles and find out. The interview is extremely long: as ever, Charles is  generous with his time and expertise.  I am going to run the interview as a series, answering one or two questions at a time.

Following today’s question, I have pasted the list of questions so you can all anticipate what is to come.

Our previous interview was at this link:

http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/lorette-c-luzajic-talks-with-michael-jackson-expert-charles-thomson/

What I think about Charles Thomson is hardly relevant, but since some of you have asked where I stand on what I see as a non-issue, and where I stand on MJ- as if that is hard to figure out- here is my statement:

I am a lifelong fan of Michael Jackson. I love interesting people and am fascinated by eccentrics, and I am an artist and writer and so I am drawn to unusual and creative people. Jackson is not my only hero, not by a long shot, but my admiration is unwavering- he is one of the greatest artists of all time, an absolutely unique person, grossly misunderstood, with an inexplicable ability to heal people around him and a heart of gold. I love him with all my heart. Yet part of my fascination is with public response: some people have died for him, some recoil, some are inspired, some are terrified. I see MJ as fated to have a mythological role, and part of that mythos is the tragic part. Tragic and broken in his own life- no one this unusual is entirely stable- and also tragic in that his magic and sorrow reveals the best and worst of human nature. Michael shows us a lot more about human nature than he showed about himself.

For these reasons, I do not believe in censoring anyone’s responses, even if I vehemently disagree. I believe in free speech in all areas, including this one. That does not mean I support people’s whims to spread lies: it does mean that I support people’s right to an opinion I may find reprehensible, or merely implausible.

As for Charles Thomson, he is a man I have never met, for those who were asking if we are old friends conspiring together. I certainly hope that we meet one day. I discovered Charles through my vast readings about Michael, and was impressed to say the least. He courageously spoke against the very presses that hire him, not always the best move for a young man hoping for a long career, but a move filled with integrity.  Charles is an extremely gifted writer with a commitment to facts. As a writer, I am envious of his professional skills and his dignified handling of animosity.

Do I agree with Charles on each and every detail? I trust Charles’ facts simply because I see how committed he is to honest reporting, even at great personal expense. But as for matters of opinion, not always. I’ve never met anyone yet with whom I always agree on every opinion. From what little I know, we have very different personality temperaments and different tastes in entertainment. Nonetheless, I am quite certain we would get on famously if we are ever given the chance to meet in a more personal setting. I expect we would not run out of things to talk about over a couple of pints or a fine cappuccino. I am grateful for the virtual world which has led me to this very gifted and inspiring writer.

Moving along now, let’s begin.

Charles, you’re a young writer who blasted rather quickly from school into the public eye after garnering some prestigious attention for your work on James Brown. Then you found yourself in the role of Michael Jackson expert. Was this unexpected? How did this affect the direction and state of your career?

First and foremost, I didn’t leave school and walk right into the public eye. After leaving school at age 16, I went to college for two years where I studied journalism among other subjects. From college I went to university, where I spent another three years in journalism training, graduating with honours in 2009. (NB from Lorette: Please be advised that by “school” I was referring not to high school but to college/university. It seems that Brits do not refer to higher ed as school.)

It is worth pointing out that none of this training is prerequisite for a career in British journalism. The industry qualification is issued by the National Council for Training Journalists (NCTJ) and if you enrol in a fast track course, you can qualify as a journalist in six months, whereas by studying the topic at college and university I trained for four years.

I first started contributing to newspapers at age 16 or 17, during my college years. It was a requirement of the journalism course I was enrolled in – we would interview local figures or cover local events and then write stories for the local press. During my early years at university I contributed to more local newspapers on a regular basis and by age 19 I was doing freelance work for an American music journal. By age 21 I was contributing to national newspapers and magazines.

My work as a Michael Jackson ‘expert’ was unexpected, to say the least. As I told you in a previous interview, I got a tip-off in March 2009 from an insider who gave me information on when and where Michael Jackson would fly into the UK to announce his comeback shows at the O2. The source asked me to leak the details as they felt it would create some positive PR around the concert announcements. I passed the information on to The Sun, which seemed the sensible thing to do – if you want publicity, you might as well go to the country’s biggest newspaper. The Sun realised that I was quite plugged in when it came to Michael Jackson, so they decided to keep using me.

My work with the Sun has drawn much criticism from Michael Jackson’s fans but I’m not quite sure why. At the first sign of impropriety I wrote a long and damning article, condemning them for their skewed reporting on Evan Chandler’s suicide. Before that, they’d never been anything but ethical in their dealings with me. It’s not like I’m some tabloid shill or paid Sun apologist. When I wrote that article about the Sun scrapping my research on Evan Chandler and replacing it with inaccurate information, I jeopardised any future work with the newspaper and have barely done anything for them since.

Regarding how my work on Michael Jackson has affected the state of my career, it hasn’t made me rich. It has boosted my profile, but only because the fans discovered my blogs and started posting them all over the internet. Before the fans discovered me, I was blogging about Michael Jackson in almost total obscurity. I got paid for my work with the Sun, but the hoopla surrounding Michael Jackson’s concerts and then his death only lasted from around March until October, and they didn’t consult me for every Jackson story they wrote – not by a long shot. It wasn’t a long term gig and my services were required only occasionally.

The majority of my work on Michael Jackson, particularly concerning the allegations and the trial, has been totally pro bono. I don’t get paid for my Huffington Post articles and obviously I write my own blog for free. But I don’t mind doing a certain amount of pro bono work. I consider journalism to be a vocation. I think it is a necessary job, especially in an era when many journalists are tethered by corporate ownership. So if I think a story is important, I will write it for free if need be. That goes for writing 5000 word essays about the media’s horrendous coverage of Michael Jackson’s trial, or covering important issues for my local newspapers. I’m currently covering a story in my town about local government trying to bulldoze children’s playing fields and build houses on them.

My work on Michael Jackson has made me a bit of an internet celebrity, which has brought just as many problems as it has benefits. But it hasn’t made me rich or won me a lucrative job in the media industry. I’m the same person living in the same house and doing the same stuff on a day to day basis – my name just generates more hits on Google.

Next time:

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

stay tuned for these questions during this serial:

Charles, you’re a young writer who blasted rather quickly from school into the public eye after garnering some prestigious attention for your work on James Brown. Then you found yourself in the role of Michael Jackson expert. Was this unexpected? How did this affect the direction and state of your career?

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence, not because you like his music, but because that’s what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson’s fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?

You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media’s most shameful episodes in history. And you’ve consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to vindicate that innocence to detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hatemongers or the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?

Regarding the photograph with Randy T- is Randy also a villain in this saga?

You were also accused of being someone you weren’t. Tell me about that.

Your previous interview on my blog received mostly wonderful support. But not entirely. I was asked why I’d run an interview with you on my blog, since you allegedly had not been a supporter before Jackson’s death. I mentioned that you are barely out of school and probably were not yet working during the trials. Am I wrong? Was there a time when you were giving Jackson negative press, and changed your mind?

There seems to be a phenomenon happening where some fans or bloggers or writers feel they have a monopoly on Michael’s legacy. While for the most part, I feel an extraordinary kinship and love as part of Michael’s fandom, there are some unfortunate divisions. Why can’t we all just get along?

You’ve been criticized for expressing that there were some artistic choices Jackson made that didn’t appeal to you. Can you comment?

For me, pretending a hero is beyond reproach, or pretending that every song or performance must appeal to every audience, means a danger of losing our critical faculty. Michael Jackson himself was far more critical of his work than even his toughest detractors. Can you comment on that?

I also feel it is dangerous to sweep things under the rug in order to sanitize someone’s reputation. We can’t get over stigmas and taboos about, for example, drug addiction, until we are able to honestly discuss such struggles. I’ve been criticized for referring to Jackson’s substance struggles, which is ironic given my own historical struggles and losses. Doesn’t it diminish Michael’s very humanity if we just leave important parts of the puzzle blank? In a sense, denying Jackson’s various struggles means denying his pain, the pain our society caused him.

You’ve also received support throughout this time. Tell me about that.

How did you handle the whole episode? How did it make you feel? What lessons have you learned?

What does this episode say about the dangers of fanaticism?

How will you proceed from this day forward?

We are talking with Michael Jackson expert Charles Thomson about some recent, peculiar events in the fan community. To recap, Thomson is a music journalist who frequently writes about black music. His award winning work on musicians like James Brown and Michael Jackson is widely read. He has written extensively in defense of Michael Jackson’s innocence, but has recently come under fire for his alleged secret agenda. In this lengthy serial interview, I tried to find out how things got so out of hand. One moment, Charles was a devoted, brilliant writer…the next, he was being accused, exposed, and jabbed for some absurd motivations. I wasn’t quite sure what was going on, so I decided to ask.

Read the first part of the interview (yesterday) here: http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/talking-with-charles-thomson-about-recent-divisive-events-in-the-mj-community/

As a journalist, you were instrumental in getting Michael Jackson’s FBI records released to the public. Tell me about that process. What did those records reveal?

The files were released under a piece of legislation called the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. The act is designed to maintain openness and transparency in government by allowing members of the public to request information which is, for one reason or another, not public. The FBI, as a government body, is required by law to respond to FOIA requests.

While a person is alive, their FBI file is unavailable because to release it would breach privacy laws. You can get around this rule but only by getting the subject of the file to sign a privacy waiver agreement. However, once a person is deceased you can request their file and the FBI is required by law to release it unless it breaches national security. The files are often redacted, however, because they include reference to particular FBI agents or information on people who are still alive.

I was one of several people who requested Michael Jackson’s FBI file under the Freedom of Information Act, which I did because I was curious to see if it contained any additional information on the government’s repeated interferences in his life. I wasn’t sure he’d even have an FBI file so I was shocked to learn that he did and that it was 600 pages long.

Overall, I was distinctly unimpressed by the FBI’s handling of the request. Initially this was because the FBI took so long handling my request. In the UK, bodies are required by law to answer FOIA requests within 20 working days. However, I filed my request with the FBI in summer 2009 and it wasn’t released until December.

I was also unimpressed by the way in which the FBI released the documents, which I’ve never seen them do in any other case. They announced to the world’s press that the documents would be uploaded on a certain date at a certain time, which sparked a worldwide rush to download the documents and be the first to write a story about them. Meanwhile, as one of the original requesters of the file, I was not given any advance notice or priority.

The result was that the media, all racing to be the first with the story, skim-read the files and published wildly inaccurate stories about them on a global basis. I saw newspapers which claimed that the FBI had supposedly seized a videotape from Jackson and found child porn on it. The files actually said that the tape, seized from an unknown person at Palm Beach customs, was simply ‘connected to Jackson’ – and that connection appeared merely to be that somebody had written his name on the cassette’s sticky label. As for child porn, there was no record of any being found.

Other newspapers said that the FBI had investigated allegations that Jackson molested two Mexican boys in the 1980s. This was patently untrue. The FBI merely noted a phone call in which somebody claimed that they’d heard a story that the FBI had investigated such a claim. The documents further note that the FBI “searched indices, both manual and automated for any reference to the above mentioned investigation. No references were found.” In other words, somebody telephoned the FBI and made a bogus allegation. The FBI noted that allegation and found no merit to it, but the media misrepresented the allegation as the FBI’s own conclusion.

The inaccuracies in the media’s reporting on Jackson’s FBI files were countless and they went all over the world. The files supported Jackson’s innocence, showing that after ten years of investigation by both the LAPD and the FBI, neither organisation had ever been able to find one piece of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime. The release of the files should have been positive PR for Michael Jackson but the media’s ridiculously poor reporting had the opposite effect.

This is why I was so irritated by the way in which the FBI handled the release of the documents. If I had been given some kind of advance copy because I was one of those who actually requested the file, I could have read them properly and filed an accurate report, which would have been copied and pasted by lazy media outlets the world over. By releasing the documents to a global mob of salivating reporters the FBI ensured that the files were not read properly before news outlets started filing reports on them. So instead of repeating accurate claims about the FBI files, media outlets – on a global basis – were recycling distortion and misinformation.

My other gripe with the FBI was that they omitted around half of Jackson’s file and never offered any explanation as to why. My understanding is that government bodies are required by law to give an explanation as to why any information has been held back when answering an FOIA request. I never saw any record of the FBI giving any such explanation.
In an earlier interview with me, you stated that you believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence, not because you like his music, but because that’s what the evidence shows. The importance of this distinction might seem rather obvious, yet it is a distinction overlooked by Jackson’s fans and foes alike. Can you comment on that?

Michael Jackson is a divisive subject. He has some very overzealous fans and some very overzealous detractors, both of whom have attacked me for pretty much the same reason. The detractors have attacked me because they think it is impossible to believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence unless you’re an insane fan. They’ve palmed me off as a ‘floon’, a word they use to describe Jackson’s ardent supporters. But I don’t even like all of Jackson’s albums or tours and I’m certainly no apologist for his mistakes.

Unfortunately, the fact that I don’t like all of Michael Jackson’s albums or tours and don’t airbrush over his mistakes has drawn the ire of some of his fans, too. They don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a fan and a journalist and, displaying logic that is strangely similar to Jackson’s detractors, they seem to think it’s impossible to believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence unless you’re a devout fan.

I’ve said in the past – notably in my previous interview with you – that I don’t like a lot of Jackson’s later musical output or performances. Consequently, these fans have lambasted me as a ‘hypocrite’ and a traitor. Quite what my opinion on Jackson’s HIStory Tour or Invincible album has to do with my views on his trial, I’m not sure, but for some fans there is definitely a perceived connection. I can’t understand the logic that by believing Jackson is innocent and at the same time not liking some of his albums I am a hypocrite. The two, as far as I am concerned, are irrelevant to one another. It’s like calling somebody a hypocrite because they love apples and hate pears.

Next time: You wrote an excellent piece for the Huffington Post about how the tabloid lynching of Jackson is one of the media’s most shameful episodes in history. And you’ve consistently conveyed fact based journalism and analysis that champions Michael Jackson as innocent, doing much to prove that innocence to his detractors. This has exposed many prejudiced hate-mongers and the woefully misinformed for what they are. Yet recently, you have been attacked on some rather absurd premises. Can you tell me about that?

I discovered a few months ago that somebody had been impersonating me on TMZ. Worried that they’d start impersonating me elsewhere, and knowing that twitter is famous for such cases, I decided to set up a twitter account. Within a few days I had roughly 200 followers and was enjoying interacting with the fans and answering their questions.

During one discussion the subject of Michael Jackson’s drug dependencies came up. I suddenly found myself bombarded with angry and abusive tweets insisting that Jackson had never been addicted to any substance and the whole story was an evil media conspiracy. I pointed out that several of Jackson’s relatives have said in interviews since his death that they knew he was addicted to drugs and had tried to stage interventions. The fans simply claimed that these relatives were part of the conspiracy.

That incident caused some of Jackson’s fan to turn against me. My comments have been blown up since then; the product of several months’ worth of Chinese whispers. I recently saw somebody claiming they’d seen me write on twitter that I was planning a negative article about Jackson’s drug addictions – a total fabrication. The incident has been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent.

At roughly the same time, I travelled to Los Angeles for a week and while I was there I met the author J Randy Taraborrelli, who quoted my work in the latest edition of his Michael Jackson biography. We went out for dinner and while we were there we got some pictures taken. Both Randy and I posted the pictures on our facebook pages.

A while later I found out that somebody had written a blog accusing Randy and I of being involved in a Sony conspiracy to murder Michael Jackson. I emailed the blogger asking them to remove the entry because it was false. The blogger simply replied, ‘But I have a photo of you and Taraborrelli. What am I supposed to do with that?’, as though the photo was some sort of big secret. The blogger was taking an open and acknowledged friendship between myself and Randy and claiming that it was somehow secretive or suspicious.

The twitter incident combined with the animosity some fans felt towards Randy – and therefore towards me by association – created a backlash against me and my work, spurred on in no small part by the constant assertions by conspiracy theorist bloggers that I was somehow involved in a thus far unfathomable (at least to me) plot by Sony to murder Michael Jackson by writing blogs about him after his death.

I have never worked for Sony. Ever. The allegation is absurd and it is entirely without any evidential basis. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped a number of vulnerable fans from being taken in by the claims.

The fall-out from these Sony allegations has been extremely distressing for me. I received numerous obscene and threatening messages via email and facebook. The blogger’s followers started spying on my social networking accounts and publishing details of who I was talking to and what I’d been writing.

This intrusion into my private life, as well as the hate mail, prompted me to privatise all of my social networking accounts. The blogger even tried to usethat against me, claiming that the privatisation of my accounts proved Sony had ordered me to stop interacting with the fans!

I soon came under attack from a second blogger who actually attempted to blackmail me. The blogger found my page on a website I’d joined at college that offered support for gay teens, then emailed me threatening to ‘expose’ me unless I gave them information on Sony’s involvement in Michael Jackson’s death. This was information I didn’t have, which resulted in the blogger outing me as gay.

That second blogger also unearthed an old account I had on a Michael Jackson related forum, where I made – I would estimate – in excess of 10,000 posts over approximately 5 years. The blogger selectively posted a handful of comments I’d made on the forum (many quite similar to comments I’d made in our last interview; points about not liking Jackson’s latter musical output and complaining that he didn’t help himself in terms of bad press by constantly painting a target on his back). This sparked fury among some of the more obsessive fans.

This all links into what I was saying earlier about how some fans can’t conceive of somebody believing in Jackson’s innocence but also disagreeing with some of his decisions. The stance these fans take is that you either totally support every single thing Michael Jackson has ever done or you’re a traitor and a hypocrite.

In your question you used the word ‘absurd’, and I think that’s a very accurate word to describe what has happened to me over the last few months. The allegations being levelled at me are beyond absurd. There is no evidence in existence that will tie me to Sony and I can state that with 100% certainty because I have never worked for them. Ever. I’ve never worked for Sony, I’ve never met John Branca, I’ve never been a ‘paid blogger’ for anybody and I certainly wasn’t involved in Michael Jackson’s death. Anybody claiming to have evidence supporting any of these allegations is a liar and/or a fantasist.

Sometimes, as I read the blogs making these allegations, I do still get angry at how these people can write total nonsense about me and there is nothing I can really do about it. However, I don’t get too worked up because as I browse their other content – nasty comments about Jackson’s grieving relatives, allegations that ‘This Is It’ is all body doubles and even claims that Jackson may have faked his own death – I understand that nobody of sound mind would take any notice of them.

What does make me angry is when I see vulnerable fans looking to these blogs for answers and taking them seriously. Whenever I look underneath one of those blogs and see somebody commenting, ‘Thanks – I didn’t know Charles was a hired Sony blogger. I won’t support him anymore’, that makes my blood boil. These bloggers are taking advantage of vulnerable people – and those vulnerable people are bigger victims in this situation than I am.

Read more:

http://extrememichaeljackson.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/interview-with-charles-thomson-part-3/


Michael Jackson virtual world taking shape

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – A virtual planet devoted to Michael Jacksonis being created online as a world where fans can go to celebrate the life of the late “King of Pop.”

California-based SEE Virtual Worlds on Tuesday announced that it had a deal with Jackson’s estate to make “Planet Michael,” an Internet world based on the artist’s music, life, and interests.

“Michael was always exploring creative new ways technology could enhance the experiences of his fans,” Jackson estate co-executorJohn McClain said in a release.

“We are thrilled to be working with SEE Virtual Worlds to build a global interactive experience that befits an artist as innovative as Michael Jackson.”

The virtual planet to be finished by late next year will let people use animated characters to socialize, explore and play games in a world with continents devoted to themes from Jackson’s life, according to SEE.

“It is fitting that in Planet Michael his fans will be able to join together in such a unique way online to celebrate his music, his artistry and his devotion to helping those in need,” said estate co-executor JohnBranca.

Planet Michael will be a free software download without subscription fees but will feature an in-world economy with opportunities to spend money or donate to charities, according to SEE.

“One of our primary goals was to build an interactive environment where fans from all over the world come together to affirm Michael’s life-long dedication to fostering global friendships,” said SEE chief executive Martin Biallas.

“The King of Pop was well-known for his visionary contributions to music, dance, fashion, entertainment and philanthropy, and it was critical that we somehow incorporate all of those elements into the game.”

SEE launched a planetmichael.com website to provide information and updates about the project.

Moonwalking just like Michael Jackson will be possible with the November launch of the first videogame dedicated to the star since his death last year.

“Michael Jackson: The Experience” was developed under the watchful eye of Jackson’s beneficiaries by French videogame titan Ubisoft and will teach players to master the King of Pop’s most famous dance moves.

The version for the Nintendo Wii console, which has been seen by AFP, sets the tone right from the start with background music from the star’s many hit songs. In total there will be between 25 and 30 available in the final version.

In the early 1990s, Jackson was the star of a videogame adapted from his 1988 “Moonwalker” film which involved players fighting supposed enemies of the star.

This game, however, invites the player to try to move like Jackson with points awarded for the most successful.

Jackson’s death sent shockwaves around the world, and family and fans were outraged to learn that the man dubbed the King of Pop was administered a dangerous mix of powerful prescription drugs in the hours before his death.

Jackson was 50 years old when he died of cardiac arrest on July 25, 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100921/ennew_afp/entertainmentitinternetmusicvideogamesjackson_20100921205149


Dr. Murray Targets Arnie Klein in MJ Death

A lot of weirdness in this article…lol

Dr. Conrad Murray is going after Michael Jackson‘s longtime physician and friend, Dr. Arnold Klein, claiming Klein is at least partly to blame for the singer‘s death and should be a defendant in Joe Jackson’s wrongful death lawsuit.

0914_conrad_arnie_EX_TMZ

In legal papers filed today and obtained by TMZ … Dr. Murray challenges Joe Jackson’s decision not to name Dr. Klein as one of the physicians allegedly responsible for his son’s death.

In the new docs, Murray quotes from Joe’s lawsuit, “Dr. Klein may have been medicating Michael Jackson up until or even beyond June 18, 2009, less than one week before Michael Jackson’s death.”

And Murray continues quoting from Joe’s lawsuit that Dr. Klein “prescribed or may have over medicated Michael Jackson including to such point that AEG Live, LLC had to hire Dr. Murray in order to separate Michael Jackson from Arnold Klein.”

And Murray goes on to quote Joe’s lawsuit which claims “AEG Live, LLC read Michael Jackson the proverbial ‘riot act’ to get him to stop subjecting himself to overmedication by Dr. Arnold Klein.”

So with all that, Dr. Murray concludes, “The plaintiff [Joe Jackson] does not explain why, given these allegations, Dr. Arnold Klein is not a required party to be added to accord proper relief.”

In other words … why didn’t Joe sue Arnie?

As TMZ first reported, Dr. Klein shot Michael full of Demerol — 51 injections in a 3-month span, right up until the week of his death.

Dr. Murray also points the finger at other doctors who treated Michael Jackson, citing TMZ stories revealing that 7 doctors other than Murray were fueling MJ with meds at or near the time of his death.

Murray’s team also asked the court to dismiss Joe’s wrongful death lawsuit — claiming Jackson doesn’t have the right to file because he’s not a beneficiary of MJ’s estate.