Thursday, December 9, 2010

Ronni Chasen--Another Flagrant Case of Injustice in Hollywood

I am taking a very quick break from the main purpose of this blog to discuss another case of horrid injustice that deserves attention--that being the brutal murder of Ronni Chasen. By all accounts, Chasen seems to have been a good person who was incredibly hard-working and completely undeserving of what happened to her.

I had thought about writing a blog about her death at some point but after positing the following comment on a social outlet yesterday I actually had a couple requests to do one now:

"Way to go "po-leese"! First you say Harold Smith has no ties, now his gun matches and he acted alone--case solved! Yeah right! He must have been really lucky not missing his target while chasing her on his bicycle!"

I was being sarcastic but low and behold the Beverly Hills Police Department has actually marked my words!

I have been keeping up with Chasen's death since it occurred on November 16th as it stuck a cord with me because of the brutality and tragedy of her death. Her photos reveal a beautiful woman who appeared to be full of life--why did this happen?

When I first heard about her death I immediately thought "hired hit" due to the nature of the crime. She was gunned down in a camera-lacking intersection by five on-target hollowed-point bullets which are more lethal than a typical bullet due to their ability to "spread" in the body.

Things we know (or thought we knew) from previous articles:

--She was likely shot from a high-profile vehicle due to the angle of the shots

--She may have been in motion (driving) when it happen considering she later crashed at enough speed her air bags deployed (how tragic to be shot then have an air bag hit you your wounds)

--The gun seemed to be at least a semi-automatic weapon

--It was not a car jacking (if you want the car--you make the person get out, not kill them, leaving them and the car)

--It was not a robbery (apparently her purse, jewelry, cell phone, etc. were not taken)

--She apparently tried to revise her will two months ago (her will leaves most of her 6 million dollar fortune to charities and one of two nieces)

--She feared someone was following her since March 2010

--There were no casings found at the scene

--The shooter appears to be an expert marksman hitting the torso of the body with all 5 shots

Then we hear, some days later, that the Beverly Hills Police Department has a "person of interest" from tips called in during an airing of "America's Most Wanted". These tipsters living in the same apartment claim Harold Smith said he was due to be paid $10,000 for a "hit" or lawsuit. They also claim Smith said he would never go back to prison yet apparently had no problem "bragging" about killing a publicist everyone had seen on TV. We have also heard from reports in the news he had been in prison before but not for murder. Others living at the apartment said he rode a bike for his method of transportation and always wore gloves which would have made it difficult for him to pull a gun trigger. He was not known to be a professional hit man and apparently had no expert firearms/marksman training. Reports also initially said that ballistics from the gun he used to kill himself did NOT match.

Come yesterday we sudden hear, oh yes, ballistics DO match. We also now hear he shot her while riding his BIKE (did he stand up on it to have the appropriate trajectory!?)--I am not talking about a motorcycle but a BIKE as in a person-powered bicycle with pedals! Now suddenly Smith worked alone--and it was a failed robbery attempt and by no means a hired hit--keeping in mind he was supposedly able to "rob" the scene of casings in the dark without being seen but failed to grab any belongings. Would it really take 5 bullets, hollow ones nonetheless, to rob someone? No. Why would someone hell-bent on never going back to prison do something so stupid, and then supposedly BRAG about it? Moreover, why do the police think the public are actually stupid enough to buy this bullshit? I certainly am not! My big question is WHO is the police either afraid of or covering?!

I would say with Chasen, hopefully her family and friends, some of which are high-profile individuals themselves with clout, will hire a private investigator to look into her murder and not accept this CRAP of a scenario given to them. But then, I read that her own brother was quoted at saying, "I'm sure it was road rage. I'm sure it was some kind of random thing." WHAT?! I would never try to implicate someone's own family in a murder, and am not doing that now, but seriously, how could he even think or say such given the evidence we know is factual? Contrary to reports by even some that knew her there are not that many nuts running around randomly killing people, especially not in the manner in which she was killed! I do not know if police are telling her family and friends that but it is not true. Most people who are murdered know or know of the assailant--there is usually some form of a connection, as with most crimes including rape and kidnapping. I do not think this case is any different.

I hope there will someday be justice in Chasen's death but things are looking dim, just as they are for Michael Jackson. At least people are not blaming her for her own death. I actually told some of my friends I feared this is how her death investigation would play out, either they would never find any suspects (or claim any) or pen it on someone else because whoever did this has power and probably a lot of money behind them, too. I think this is the same route that Jackson's death has taken--money and power are more important than justice for the victim. When you look at these two individuals (and even to some degree at Smith who very well may be a victim here, too, being accused of something he did not do which ultimately led to his suicide)--they are the weaker of the two forces compared to those who wanted them dead. That being said, and considering the politics in Los Angeles and in Hollywood (the entertainment industry) in particular, do you think the police or prosecuting forces want to defend and fight for these two individuals who mean nothing to them and risk losing their jobs and/or possibly their lives? I cannot say this about Chasen but with Jackson there are clear ties, monetary ties, tying those assumed involved in his murder in some way with the authorities that are suppose to be on HIS side or moreover on the side of JUSTICE, integrity and TRUTH, not corruption and the "good ol' boy" system.


Sunday, December 5, 2010

The "Gloved One" and the "Invisible Hand"--Michael Jackson and Sony Music Entertainment, Part One

This is going to be a multi-part "series" for I cannot get all of it written down in any reasonable amount of time. It is also sort of a work-in-progress, too, as I do not know everything about Michael's relationship with Sony but I am learning more and more each and every day. It takes time to learn something of this nature and takes even more time to get it right--and getting it right is what matters to me most. The music business has been something that has intrigued me since I was a teen as I watched one of my favorite artists, Prince, fight for "freedom" from Warner Brothers and discuss what he considered the theft of his "masters" (mechanical copyrights/actual tracks that are on the albums you buy). I have also for years had an interest in how businesses operate, including the economics of those businesses. Hopefully this will help me to understand what has and continues to come about from Michael Jackson's relationship with Sony Music that is slated to continue, via his Estate, until 2017, if not until the unforeseeable future.

Michael and Sony became artist-with-company in 1987 when Sony purchased CBS Records whom Michael had been with for many years after leaving Motown. Obviously Michael had tremendous success both artistically and business-wise throughout the 1980s. I will try to start this particular blog with what began to transpire in 1990/1991 with the extension of Michael's contract with Sony after an abbreviated introduction to my stance with Sony. I will then, hopefully soon, continue such discussions all the way up to now concerning the relationship with Michael Jackson's Estate and Sony Music Entertainment, including my take on the new album "Michael" and the issue concerning some of the tracks on the album.

I want to make something clear first right off the top--I am not a "boycotter" of Michael's "new" music. I will not criticize someone who feels they need to boycott the new releases from Sony. I will also not criticize someone who chooses to buy the album or hopes for it to reach #1. If you believe your stance is what is best for Michael, and your emotions are purely from the heart, then I cannot disagree with that stance. I believe the release of "new" music, be it finished, unreleased tracks cut from previous albums due to time constraints or demos of the artist (Michael) at work can help cultivate Michael's genius that has many times been overlooked by the public (and even some fans) who do not understand the depth of Michael's involvement in his own music. However, I will not and cannot support the creation of music in Michael's name and image that is utilizing scant song concepts and fake vocals being passed off as his own, while in turn brainwashing the public into thinking those are his vocals on the finished product--and his vocals only. I believe Michael cared for and cherished his fans more than any other entertainer ever and to think an industry, the very same industry Michael accused of "breaking" artists down and leaving them "broken"--which is what essentially happened to Michael with help of numerous individual extortionists and con-artist corporations including the concert promoter AEG--is now passing the torch of manipulation onto his fans. Someone has to be blunt about what is happening and has happened in the past. I am willing to break it down and tell it like it is--I want to do it for Michael.

I am not going to sit here and pretend to tell you I know exactly where every penny of "new" album sales will go. I will not attempt to tell you how buying or not buying the album will hurt or help Michael or his children. I will not even sit here and tell you that Sony "murdered" Michael though many believe they had motive for such because of his ownership in the Sony/ATV catalog. What is factual, however, is Sony had a direct hand in "murdering" Michael's career and I think too many people are overlooking this fact and shifting blame or lying to themselves so they can justify buying Michael's posthumous music free of guilt because in their own hearts there is a feeling that there is at least something wrong with the situation we are facing today, be it with his "new" album, his unexpected death, his enormous debt and/or all the tribulations he faced since the 1990s.

I see fans shifting blame of any issues related to this new album off Sony and onto Michael's family for sabotaging the album or claiming Michael only had issues with Tommy Mottola who served as Chairman and CEO of Sony Music Entertainment from 1988-early 2003. Both of these notions are false. The family has not brainwashed the masses, including those who could not even name most, if any of Michael's family members, nor did Michael say his only problem was with Tommy Mottola (see the videos below). His problem was not just with Sony (think back to Brett Ratner's interview with Michael and the discussion about "sharks in the industry" His problem was with the entire music industry and how they essentially use artists as modern-day slaves, cheating them out of profit and product which in-turn affects them in the latter years of their lives. Michael attempted to prevent this from happening to himself when he bought the ATV catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million. It should have provided to him a steady and dependable income for the rest of his life. The catalog was also important to him because it contains a part of our history including some of the world's most treasured art in the form of song (the Beatles are the highest selling artists of all-time, making this catalog all the more valuable financially and artistically). But, instead this catalog became a burden of fear and paranoia that may have in-fact led to his death, if not certainly his financial decline and despondence. All of this was exacerbated by Sony. Sony took advantage of a situation in which Michael went from champion to underdog within a matter of hours in 1993 and instead of being loyal to him, standing at his side, they bit the hand that had and will now continue to feed them, disregarding the fact that Michael was a human being and not a disposable commodity. There have been many artists rocked by scandals, some true, some not, but many have not suffered the devastating blow that Michael himself and his career had to endure when he was undoubtedly innocent of all allegations against him. Sony should have helped to rebuild his career--instead they were helping to break it apart, piece by piece, and likely during this demise eying for a profitable means directly through Michael that would not have to face any issues with public relations or image--that means being the ATV catalog.

Please listen to the following to get a better understanding of Michael's stance on Sony and the music industry in general.

Michael's "Killer Thriller" Speech:

See 5:40, Michael and fans chant "Sony Sucks"--it was not just about Mottola:

The 1991 Contract

Please read the following sources for information on the 1991 contract between Michael and Sony:

To the best of my knowledge, no one has a copy of this contract but Lynton Guest claims he was able to view it in his book, "The Trials of Michael Jackson". Some information about this contract has been revealed, however, through various sources online. I think enough of it is known to piece some key information together though having an actual copy of the contract would be fabulous.

When Michael signed into this new agreement/extension that was to be valid until March of 2006 (15 years) he had supposedly "entered into an agreement to create feature films, theatrical shorts, television programming and a new record label for the Japanese conglomerate's American entertainment subsidiaries". Basically none of this happened, certainly nothing worthy of recognition and/or profit for Michael or Sony, either. There was no TV programming, no feature films, no theatrical shorts unless you try to count the hidden gem "Ghosts" which most non-fans have never heard of or seen. A record label dubbed "Nation Records" never came to fruition but MJJ Music was created ( Filmmaking had been a childhood ambition for Michael--one that he never got to really pursue--something (moreover, someoneS) always got in the way. "He doesn't need the money. So you say we have this fantastic company that has all these avenues for you. Give us your albums and you can do movies, TV shows." That is exactly what Sony did--they wanted the music, his greatest asset. However, just years later he did find himself needing the money, or so he thought (this will be addressed later). By Michael going further and further into debt, Sony became closer and closer to controlling the ATV catalog which contains 251 of the Beatles most precious songs. The Sony/ATV catalog owns and administers over 500,000 song copyrights today (

At times the contract from 1991 has been dubbed a "billion dollar contract" but it would have been Sony, not Michael, making this amount over time. "Tommy Mottola, the president of Sony Music Entertainment, said the company based the estimate of $1 billion in retail revenues on the 40 million copies of "Thriller" and 25 million copies of "Bad" that have been sold, at an average of $10 per record, or $650 million." I know Michael always felt the need to top himself and had aspirations of beating "Thriller's" success but for Sony and Mottola to even remotely assume Michael would ever create another "Thriller" is shocking and, in all honestly, purely ignorant and unbelievable. What "Thriller" achieved was a once-in-lifetime event for not only Michael but all of us living now, too. It was more than just a perfect album--it was a cultural phenomenon. "Thriller" set the time piece to the decade if not for the century and then paved the way to how music videos/short music films should be created. It established guidelines that were to be aspired--not surpassed. Maybe Michael did not know this but those in the music industry did. To build a contract off such a notion was already a step in the wrong direction for Michael--in fact, it was a burden placed on him as far as I am concerned.

Of Michael's reported possible earnings through the new contract, "Jackson, 32, reportedly could receive more than $120 million per album if sales match the 40-million-plus level of his smash mid-'80s album "Thriller." Two sources close to the talks said the reclusive singer is guaranteed an advance payment of $5 million per record plus a 25% royalty from each album based on retail sales." No artist could or can top "Thriller's" sales and honestly not many artists could even rival the sales of Michael's subsequent albums, either. Though the royalty rate is very good, the advance payment of $5 million is pathetic. This schematic means Michael could only make money off his albums if they sold well. If his album did not sell well, then his profits would be minimal. In my opinion, this payment scale would have protected Sony from losing money if Michael's albums failed to sell and all albums sold after the 1993 scandal were plagued with problems which I hope to cover in the next blog. Here is a breakdown of some math from this $5 million/25% royalties payment plan:

"HIStory" sold 20 million copies (40 million CDs total): 20 million album sets x $20 dollars (assuming the two-disc set was double the amount of a single CD) = $400 million x 0.25% for royalties = $100 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $105 million GROSS for Michael for "HIStory"

"Blood on the Dance Floor": 6 million albums sold x $10 per album = $60 million dollars x 0.25% for royalties = $15 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $20 million GROSS for Michael for "Blood on the Dance Floor"

"Invincible": 13 million albums sold x $10 per album = $ 130 million dollars x 0.25% for royalties = $32.5 million GROSS + $5 million advancement = $37.5 million dollars GROSS for Michael for "Invincible"

At first glance these seem like great figures but keep in mind a) these figures of total album sales are current--including the surge in sales after his death, b) they are not confirmed, at least, not by me, and c) we do not know what his NET income was for these albums. I do not know how much Sony did or could have taken out for advance payments, including costs like the reported $30 million it took to make "Invincible". If such was to come out of Michael's gross earnings for "Invincible", then that would have left him making only $7.5 million for "Invincible", with only $2.5 million of that coming from royalties since its release--and this would have been for about 5 years worth of work ("Invincible" was worked on from 1997-2001). So, Michael would have earned about $1.5 million a year for "Invincible", not including taxes or other costs recalling also that the 13 million sales figure is current.

I would assume that Sony would have recouped, at minimum, their advancement costs as any business would not want to put themselves in a hole. I am also not sure where the cost of promotion and pressing of the CDs would fit into this equation, either. Even though Sony would have earned 75% off album sales I would still assume (though I am not sure) that an artist would at least be responsible for the cost of making their own albums as the company would lose profit if they did not recoup some, if not all of the costs before the album was released. Think of that $30 million for the production/creation of "Invincible" as a loan from the bank except the bank is Sony. That is how I would assume business is conducted when you are dealing with such massive sums--no company wants or can afford to give away free money. This schematic I mentioned above is also how the "This Is It" tour was set up with AEG--Michael was being "loaned" money to prepare for his tour and once his tour began the first profits were to go to AEG to cover advancement costs, not Michael. AEG went further than just wanting to recoup advancement costs and I hope to soon go back and discuss the AEG contract again as more details have come to light, serious details. I will also discuss "Invincible" in more detail in another blog soon, too.

The six albums to be completed for the 1991 contract were to be done over 15 years which meant an album would be released on average every 2.5 years. Michael typically released an album every 3-5 years and this seemed to work for him, too. So, not only was Michael expected to release a new album every 30 months but to also balance that work between tours, movies, television shows and other work. Sounds a bit too much, right? "If that trend continues (just based on his albums), he will be approaching 60 when his final record under the Sony deal hits the stores. One source predicted that Jackson will step up the pace now. He also reportedly will augment his new material with a "greatest hits" collection. But Schulhof (Chairman of US Sony Corporation until 1995) said he was not concerned." "But some financial analysts called the Jackson deal extravagant. 'They (had) better hope he stays popular,' said one analyst who asked not to be named. Another accused Sony of 'grandstanding.' I have to agree with this--it was grandstanding, and a burden like I mentioned before. Michael was 32 years old when he signed this contract. That means the contract should have been valid until he was 47 years old. Though he could (and should) have remained a pivotal force in the music and entertainment industry, it is unrealistic to think Michael would have sustained the same force being seen in the early 1980s or even the early 1990s into the mid-2000s, especially when he was going to have to "step up the pace" and begin work on film, taking away from the music. Michael was a perfectionist--he would have preferred to have more time on his than more material. He obviously had a "quality, not quantity" belief in his work. Why would Sony want to put these type of demands on him, then, when it had worked for him in the 1980s when with CBS? Was this the beginning of the attempt to make Michael fail in order to capture the ATV catalog or just purely coincidental? I am not sure.

More on Michael Schulhof:,9171,983851-1,00.html

The above article highlights Schulhof's achievements while at Sony including Sony's entrance and failure in Hollywood and his departure from Sony in December 1995--one month after Michael merged his ATV catalog with the Sony catalog for somewhere between $50-$90 million. Was this merger more for Michael who was rumored to be having financial issues but had just released "HIStory" and would be going on tour soon or for Sony who was contemplating the sale of their failed film division and was directly hurting from Schulhof's big purchases during his tenure with the company? I would seem to think it was for the latter.

In the next blog, I will began discussion on the albums released under this contract from 1991 and describe the faults with those releases. I will also likely then discuss the merger of the ATV catalog with the Sony catalog and discuss some of the information concerning the loans taken out then under the tenure of Myung Ho Lee who later helped fuel the filth written by Maureen Orth.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

My Take on the Oprah/Katherine Jackson Interview (and More)

Overall I felt Oprah's interview with Katherine Jackson was much better than that of Lisa Marie Presley though I have my reasons for being against any interview with Oprah. There is no doubt, to me, that Katherine loved and misses her son deeply. I have decided to exclude any discussion about Joseph Jackson and his views on discipline. I think we have heard enough on that topic over the years--and know the truth.

Michael and he Allegations...Again

I think Katherine spoke well defending her son against the allegations though I do think the public needs to learn the facts, the evidence behind these extortion attempts through the likes of professionals like Tom Mesereau though some fans do a stellar job as well and should be heard, too. Oprah, of course, would not allow such detailed information on her show and time was limited but Katherine's belief in her son has never wavered and that should be considered by those uninformed about the molestation allegations. I could not believe that Oprah actually asked Katherine if she had doubts of her son's innocence not once but multiple times. I found it appalling. How many times can Katherine tell the public her son would never hurt a child, that he would rather hurt himself first? Katherine does not say this because she is biased--she says it because she knows it is the truth as does anyone who really looks into the evidence with an unbiased approach.

For more information regarding the molestation allegations/extortion attempts please go to the following blog:

Michael and His Appearance

I really do not understand the need or even desire to discuss Michael's physical appearance. Like Katherine said, it was embarrassing to him--it was obviously a touchy subject based on his reaction in the Bashir documentary (he became uneasy, tapping his feet, when Bashir harassed him about his nose). Michael did so many good things in the world so why on Earth would anyone care about his appearance? As we age our looks change whether it is surgically or naturally. Oprah bordered on the line of persecution when she kept asking Katherine about her son's appearance, how many surgeries he had had, if Katherine still saw him as the same person as when he was a child, etc. I think Michael is one of the few people whose character stayed genuine from childhood to adulthood--his looks did not change him and that is what matters most. I think what most people do not realize is the most fundamental change in Michael's appearance was his skin color:

Photo comparison provided by Eloise G.

Of course this did not change his race and for the umpteenth time Michael did not want to become "white". Michael was proud of his African-American heritage. Though in most photos you cannot see the vitiligo (an auto-immune disease that can effect anyone of any race), it is apparent in the photo below (some computer screens may not be able to show it as well as others):

Click on the photo to enlarge it:

Notice the patch consistent with vitiligo on the right side of his forehead (your left side) directly above the inner portion of his eyebrow. This is also consistent with what David Nordahl recently said in his interview with Deborah Kunesh (the interview is included at the bottom of this blog)--that you could see vitiligo on the right side of Michael's face, his neck and hands. If you look at pictures of Michael in the late 80s and early 90s he would many times use his hair to cover the right side of his face likely due to the vitiligo that was either visible or he feared would be visible:

Michael's self-esteem regarding his appearance was very fragile. To me, it was not an issue of wanting to look good, being "addicted to plastic surgery" or seeing himself as some sort of artwork--it was about struggling with being a child star having to grow up and change (while being harassed about not being "cute" anymore), being ridiculed about his features, especially his nose from some family members, the media and then a rude unsympathetic public who has done some atrocious things with his photos, losing his pigment that defined a part of who he was and then losing his hair from the 1984 burn and lupus. How much can one person take? People really should consider the statements Michael made multiple times that he did not even wish to go in public because he loathed his own appearance. How sad--he was never an ugly man. But, I really think people convinced him that he was ugly (and convinced some of the ignorant public of that, too) and thus the inner struggle began and it was a struggle he could never win with himself.

Michael and Addiction...Again

It truly makes me sick to see Oprah discuss Michael and addiction again when addiction had nothing to do with his death, especially not an addiction to painkillers--again, no painkillers were found in his toxicology screening or in the house, even. Oprah continuously fails to focus on his humanitarian work, to focus on his music, to focus on the injustice in his life--she can only focus on the allegations, plastic surgery and drugs. Would she like to only be remembered on for her weight battles and girls'-school sex scandal someday? I doubt it.

Please everyone realize that drug use, even of addictive medications, is not always drug abuse. I do not know if the Jackson family is like many families out there that believe medications like pain medications are dangerous and anyone who takes such is an addict. I cannot help but assume this because Michael and his brother Randy both are known to have refused pain medications during very painful events during their lives. There is no reason to suffer from pain. What I really want to do is clarify some things Katherine said to Oprah regarding drug abuse and addiction and then add to it. Based on what Katherine said I feel there is a lot she does not know or understand and was saying almost everything based on assumptions through hearsay. Katherine mentioned not knowing how Michael unified his skin coloring--he basically had to "erase" areas of pigment via bleaching as make-up became too difficult to use as coverup as the vitiligo beacme more widespread. If she did not know that, then I do not think she has any knowledge of whether or not Michael was really an addict, especially if she only spoke to him once about the matter briefly throughout all the years of his purported addiction.

I want people to understand that Michael did not die from an "overdose" in the traditional way one thinks of an overdose. His autopsy does not say "accidental overdose" but rather "homicide--acute propofol intoxication--injection by another". He died from non-therapeutic prescribing (administering of drugs for no legitimate medical reason) carried out by Conrad Murray, done so in an environment in which sufficient respiratory assistance (some way to get oxygen into Michael's body) was not made available. Even though it makes no sense that Murray gave propofol to Michael, though it makes no sense why Murray would think it would be okay to give three benzodiazepines (two of which were IV and IV formulations should not be used for insomnia) to Michael that night as well, had Murray at least monitored Michael and had some basic equipment to help Michael breath Michael would likely be alive today.

There are many tabloid reports out there that suggest Michael was a drug addict, dependent on pain medications from the mental torment they the media helped create for him beginning in 1993. I know Katherine went as far back as 1984 but please know that no one has ever suggested Michael had any problem with pain medications before 1993. I felt like Katherine was assuming that because he likely received pain medications while recovering from his burn (though initially I believe he refused), thus he was an addict since then but that is not true. Burns are one of the most painful physical traumas one can experience and the avoidance of pain medication from something like this could actually prevent one from healing as the body would be placed in a state of constant stimulation and agony--that is no way to heal. Pain narcotics would not "cure" Michael's mental anguish or torment from the public humiliation and torment he faced. Based on his appearance in the 1993 Mexico deposition over song copyright issues, I would think that Michael was not one of the 5% who experienced euphoria from pain medications like oxycodone (needless to say true drug addicts abuse this drug by crushing then diluting the tablets in liquid and injecting them intravenously). In fact, during the latter portions of the deposition he appears to be the most miserable and saddest person I have ever seen and though he seemed to be sedated he was able to answer all questions presented to him in a coherent manner. Keep in mind he had recently had an abscessed tooth removed that did in fact require pain medication, was facing the molestation allegations, was performing on his tour and being deposed all during this time just hours before leaving for London for what has been dubbed rehab for "drug addiction" when in reality Michael said he had a dependence issue and I feel more than anything he just wanted to get away for a while as he desperately needed to get away, far far away.

Michael has stated to people time and time again that he really did experience pain, be it from injuries, from surgeries, from lupus or whatever. In fact, during one of the CNN interviews with Deepak Chopra he said Michael asked him for a narcotic prescription. Chopra told him no. Michael told him he did not understand, that he was in real physical pain. Chopra then jumped to the conclusion that Michael was a drug addict and then called the family for an intervention. What a load of hogwash. Chopra did not have any business writing a prescription for Michael but also had no business immediately insinuating that Michael was a drug addict and needed an intervention, either! He should have referred him to a doctor who could examine him and then select an appropriate pain treatment regimen. I believe Michael wholeheartedly when he tried to tell his mother he was not an addict. "My own mother doesn't believe me." He kept saying it over and over to her. I believe that when he took pain medications he did in fact take them to attempt to alleviate physical pain and physical pain only. That would mean dependence, if ever an issue or not--should not be turned into him being called a "drug addict" in any form. Pain medications can be addictive with anyone who takes them. The public has a broad misconception about what drug addiction/dependence and abuse/use really is; even some medical practitioners do, too.

We hear all these stories about Michael supposedly being addicted to pain medications but none of these people can actually say they ever witnessed him taking or injecting anything and some of them cannot even say they ever saw him under the influence. I do not believe these accounts of reported addiction and abuse (as neither did David Nordahl who questioned whether some of these people have been paid to spread these lies as he recalled some tabloid workers walk around with a suitcase full of cash looking for someone to feed them a story). However, the media takes these stories and blasts them to the public, true or not about Michael's supposed "addictions" and does nothing to discuss any type of facts or notions of truth concerning Michael. The public does not easily find that Tom Mesereau said that he never saw Michael under the influence at any time though he was with Michael, communicating with Michael most of the day throughout the trial ( David Nordahl said he never saw Michael under the influence of drugs or alcohol, either (I will elaborate on a story he shared here shortly). The public does not get to read about Michael's account that he had taken no pain medications, choosing to meditate instead, while suffering from a spider bite on his leg ( No one is talking about Lou Ferrigno, Christian Audigier or Miko Brando saying they never saw any problem. Better yet, few have heard Dr. Patrick Treacy or Cherilyn Lee discuss not seeing any signs or symptoms of addiction or abuse while he was their patient and/or friend (someone today mentioned Dr. Treacy said Michael refused pain medications while under his care and resorted to running around the house instead but I would have to see or read this clip to be able to verify that). Former child actor Mark Lester is an osteopath in the UK and says Michael showed no signs of having an abuse or addiction issue (he could not recall him even taking an aspirin) and he also made similar comments to Dr. Klein concerning Michael's severe fear of needles ( Lester suggested Michael use acupuncture twice, once for his spider bite. Michael could not do it--Lester said he could not deal with chiropracty, either, because of the noises the bones make when they pop. Even Conrad Murray claimed he knew of no addiction issues until he decided to claim Michael was addicted to a non-addictive drug! But no, instead of reading these stories and hearing these stories in the mainstream media we see articles stating the spider bite was in fact the result of him shooting up heroin in the shin of his leg. I do not think the worst of addicts would ever resort to using the shin of their leg for shooting! That being said I think it is important to understand what the skin of an IV drug abuser looks like:

This blog above appears to be a very good blog that details some of the problems IV drug abusers face from their addictions. The autopsy report concluded that Michael's skin was rather unremarkable except for vitiligo. He had fresh puncture wounds to his right neck, both arms, left calf and right ankle. These were either done by Murray or paramedics--in other words, they were recent wounds and not from weeks or months prior. Concerning scarring, he had the following scars as listed in the autopsy report:
-Scars behind each ear
-Scars on his nose
-Scar-like area on his right shoulder
-Scar-like area at the base of his neck on his back--this was further examined and the following was concluded "Sections of skin (slide U) show no melanocytic pigment. Melanocytes, although present, are reduced in number. The skin is otherwise unremarkable. No scar or suture material is present."
-1/4 inch scar above the inside of the left elbow
-One 1/8 inch scar on each wrist (could this have been from the handcuffs?)
-7/8 inch scar on the right palm below the thumb
-2 inch surgical scar on the lower right abdomen
-5/8 inch scar by the belly button
-2 inch semi-circular scar on the right knee with a few smaller scars below it (knee surgery?)
-Area of hyperpigmentation on the right shin (this appears to be from the spider bite and/or MRSA infection)

Pictures of the spider bite/possible MRSA infection:



This is the only noted incident of Michael ever having anything like this. I would think because of his lupus (which I presume to be systemic) his skin may have been susceptible to infection. Also, considering he was able to heal from that vicious wound is another indication that Michael was in fact healthy and not having any health complications at that time (2002-2003), including complications from drug abuse. I am honestly shocked he was able to heal from that wound and heal so nicely!

Though Michael had some scars as noted previously the scarring does not seem to be consistent with IV drug abuse as described in the blog above written by Dr. Bates. Dr. Bates also states, "chronic venous insufficiency and ulcers may be found in 88% of people with a history of injection drug abuse." The autopsy report states "the skeletal and articular structures of the right lower extremity are unremarkable. Incidentally ("by the way") noted is a thin 5 cm. long calcific collection in the posterior mid to distal leg consistent with atherosclerotic arterial calcification. The skeletal structures of the left lower extremity are unremarkable. Incidentally noted is a thin 2 cm. long calcific density in the posterior distal leg consistent with calcified arterial atherosclerosis (found at the same level as the ID marker band placed about the lower left leg). There is additional minimal calcified arterial atherosclerotic calcification approximately 1.5 cm distal to the larger calcification. Conclusion: Mild calcified arterial atherosclerosis of both legs."

Michael did not have "chronic venous insufficiency" and did not have any ulcers but rather some normal aging of his arteries you would find in a healthy 50 year old man. Actually, most 50 year old men would kill for Michael's legs!

What I have discussed above only covers IV drug abuse (i.e. Demerol, heroin or IV morphine). This does not cover oral medications which would not cause skin damage. As I have mentioned before when one abuses drugs a toll is usually taken on the liver, regardless of the dosage form as all drugs eventually get to the liver and most are metabolized by the liver. The following was said about Michael's liver:

"It is red-brown and the capsule is thin. The consistency is soft and the cut surface is smooth. There is a normal lobular arrangement. The liver (slide Q) is normal in structure. Hepatocytes (liver cells) show no inclusions or lipid droplets. There is no significant parenchymal necrosis or inflammation."

Michael's liver was healthy, in other words; it was not so much inflamed. I cannot help but think had he been abusing propofol for weeks before his death that his liver should have shown some signs of lipid deposits, but that is just a guess. I say this because propofol is mixed with soybean oil--it is basically a mixture of medicine, oil, egg and fat.

I hate being this graphic and discussing Michael like this but this may be the only way to get people to grasp the concept that Michael was in fact healthy when he died and did not die from addiction in any form and did not seem to suffer from addiction during his lifetime. Even people who consume the maximum but recommended amount of acetaminophen/paracetamol may find themselves having significant liver damage over years of use. Many pain narcotics, such as Vicodin and Percocet, two that people claim Michael abused, contain acetaminophen.

David Nordahl, from his recent interview with Deborah Kunesh, said that he recalled Michael being in severe pain from having a balloon (tissue expander) placed under his scalp. Not only was Michael burned which caused disfigurement to his scalp but lupus (which I will discuss here shortly) also complicated matters with trying to do restorative surgery to his scalp. When these restorative measures were done, more harm than good seemed to happen because of the lupus. During one of these expansions, which I believe occurred before the "Dangerous" tour in 1993, Michael expressed being in a lot of pain and thought perhaps he should take an aspirin. David told him aspirin was tough on the stomach (which is true) and suggested Advil (which is just as bad) since Michael had always had a bad stomach. Michael was given pain narcotics by a doctor to treat the pain and it is believed he developed possible problems with dependence shortly thereafter from this issue with his scalp. Karen Faye has also mentioned that Michael was using pain medications while on the "Dangerous" tour, that his scalp was not allowed to heal properly before the tour began. I wish I could confirm that during this time a tissue expander was being used (mid-to-late 1993). If anyone has any information on this I would appreciate it. I do recall reading or hearing about it a long, long time ago but have no idea where or when I read it.

I also wanted to note that I seriously question the judgment and treatment of some of Michael's doctors but all doctors were cleared of any wrongdoing except Conrad Murray. "Wrongdoing" includes prescribing/enabling an addict. Some practitioner(s) were reprimanded for using pseudonyms (fake names) only. (


I think many people know that Michael had lupus. However, many people do not know there are different types of lupus. I was under the impression Michael had discoid lupus since Klein was treating him. But, looking at the autopsy report and photos of Michael, I believe he had systemic lupus. Below are some common symptoms of systemic lupus:

Common Symptoms of Lupus
To help the doctors diagnose lupus, a list of 11 common criteria, or measures, was developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). ACR is a professional association of rheumatologists. These are the doctors who specialize in treating diseases of the joints and muscles, like lupus. If you have at least four of the criteria on the list, either at the present time or at some time in the past, there is a strong chance that you have lupus.
1. Malar rash – a rash over the cheeks and nose, often in the shape of a butterfly
2. Discoid rash – a rash that appears as red, raised, disk-shaped patches
3. Photosensitivity – a reaction to sun or light that causes a skin rash to appear or get worse
4. Oral ulcers – sores appearing in the mouth
5. Arthritis – joint pain and swelling of two or more joints in which the bones around the joints do not become destroyed
6. Serositis – inflammation of the lining around the lungs (pleuritis) or inflammation of the lining around the heart that causes chest pain which is worse with deep breathing (pericarditis)
7. Kidney disorder – persistent protein or cellular casts in the urine
8. Neurological disorder – seizures or psychosis
9. Blood disorder – anemia (low red blood cell count), leukopenia (low white blood cell count), lymphopenia (low level of specific white blood cells), or thrombocytopenia (low platelet count)
10. Immunologic disorder – abnormal anti-double-stranded DNA or anti-Sm, positive antiphospholipid antibodies
11. Abnormal antinuclear antibody (ANA)
People with lupus also may experience symptoms that do not appear among the ACR criteria:
• fever (over 100° F)
• extreme fatigue
• hair loss
• fingers turning white and/or blue when cold (Raynaud’s phenomenon)

Rash--Michael, at times, certainly had a rash on his face that appears to be more malar than discoid to me (at least to me but I am not a doctor). Singer Seal has discoid lupus, in comparison:

Malar (systemic) vs. Discoid Lupus Rash:

Photosensitivity--Michael did have this, obviously, but it was also due to vitiligo. Those with lupus may have other autoimmune diseases as well.

Arthritis--Michael did complain of pain and the autopsy report confirmed he had arthritis in his right hand, left pinky, and lower and mid back, at minimum.

Serositis--Michael had some lung issues throughout his adult life though the exact nature of what was going on seems very vague. LaToya mentions in her book that Michael had been hospitalized multiple times in the 1980s from chest pain and lung problems. Michael even mentioned one of these bouts in his autobiography. Quincy Jones said Michael claimed at times he had "blisters on his lungs" though Quincy did not believe him ( The autopsy report found the following regarding Michael's lungs:

"The above findings reflect a depletion of structural and functional reserves of the lung. Reserve depletion is the result of widespread respiratory bronchiolitis and chronic lung inflammation in association with fibrocollagenous scars and organizing/recanalizing thromboemboli of small arteries. It should be noted that the above lung injury with reserve loss is not considered to be a direct or contributing cause of death. However, such an individual would be especially susceptible to adverse health effects."

Please understand that the above finding does not mean Michael had pnuemonia which is a bacterial infection. Michael had a problem with his lungs that never went away (chronic)--and though I am not completely sure why he had this I would think this could be from systemic lupus as I know that fibrocollagenous scarring or fibrosis can be caused from one's own body attacking itself. (

Kidney Disorder--Michael's kidneys seemed to be fine but the autopsy report did state "the right pyramidal apex shows focal interstitial fibrosis". I am not sure what to make of this. I know people with lupus often (about half) have kidney issues at some point.

Anemia--Brian Oxman has made the claim that Michael did suffer from some sort of anemia. I am not sure where this came from or what type of anemia he may have had as there are different kinds of anemia.

Michael also suffered from hair loss and people have said at times he was cold though I do not know if he was just cold-natured or if he had Raynaud's Syndrome as well. Michael's fingernails at times seemed to darken. This could have been from lupus and/or lung disease. Michael was not a smoker. (

Michael certainly appears to have more than 4 of the above criteria for systemic lupus, in my opinion. I do not recall ever hearing/reading about Michael taking anything for lupus other then prednisone in which he took very, very high doses.

The Children

I try my best to not discuss Michael's children in my blog, or anywhere for that matter, because I know Michael fought hard to help their lives as private as possible. I respect his wishes even though now that he is gone his children have lost a lot of that privacy that he fought so hard to give them. I hope people will keep in mind that Michael's children are still indeed children and we should respect them by not trying to intrude into their private lives by "promoting" them in any form. I know most fans do not do such but I cringe when the paparazzi takes their photos or when I see videos of them on YouTube. This is not fair to them and would be totally against Michael's wishes. Please respect Michael's wishes and the privacy of his children as well.

I do want to say, however, I think Michael's children are three of the most intelligent, mature and respectful children ever just based on the little bit we have seen and heard from them. What they said about their father, especially what Paris said to Oprah, I consider to have been "perfect" and the most important thing anyone has ever said about him. I hope his children someday will know that there are people out there that love their father very, very much and want to help them in helping the world understand what kind of man Michael really was. I hate to fathom anyone ever insulting their father and them having to read it or hear it because when I myself see it I feel like dying sometimes. I cannot imagine the pain or feeling of helplessness when out of everyone--they know the truth about their father, they know what kind of person he really was. That is why I personally will never give up on trying to tell people the truth about Michael, not only for him, but for his children, too.

Deborah Kunesh's interview with David Nordahl:

Thursday, November 11, 2010

An Apology is in Order from Kelvin MacKenzie

An Apology is in Order from Kelvin MacKenzie

First, to acquaint yourself with that of ex-editor Kelvin Mackenzie and his comments please visit the link below:

It takes someone lacking in morals, character and likely a conscious to say the reprehensible things MacKenzie said about Michael Jackson and his children. Paris Jackson is a very intelligent, mature and articulate young lady who was able to articulate her thoughts directly to Oprah in a very honest, sincere and moving manner. Perhaps the most moving response she gave, when asked what she missed most about her father, was that she missed "everything"--she was on the brink of tears but was able to remain composed. Who should we believe regarding Jackson and his parenting--his own child or an idiot who could not even support his own arguments on national television? Only a fool like MacKenzie would support the latter.

There are some people who refuse to accept the fact that Michael Jackson was found not guilty of all charges brought against him in 2005. He was never brought to trial in 1993 due to a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. If one takes the time to examine the 1993 accuser's father (Evan Chandler), extortion is evident and firmly established. If one examines the trial from 2005, extortion, perjury, and criminal misconduct are evident on behalf of the accuser (Gavin Arvizo), the accuser's family and the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office. If one is to examine the public FBI files maintained on Jackson (as they are maintained on all celebrities), they will notice they lack evidence for any sort of wrongdoing. The only place one can attempt to find "evidence" of wrongdoing by Jackson is in tabloid bull like MacKenzie's former magazine "The Sun".

I know that MacKenzie is not the first or only person to state that Jackson's children are better off without him. I pray those who could make such a statement do not have children of their own as they obviously do not understand the importance of the parent-child bond. Though Jackson's children led what was forced to be a rather unique and sheltered life it was obviously a life full of love and guidance. His children are adjusting incredibly well going from one parent to none, living only with him to a plethora of cousins, transitioning easily from home schooling to private schooling and obviously suffering no ill-effects due to the "veiling" that took place only when in public with their superstar father who mobbed on a regular basis. Such resilience to this tragic circumstance does not come about by accident or sheer luck--it comes from their father Michael Jackson.

It is my hope as well as well as the hope of others that a public apology be made to the Jackson family and most importantly Jackson's children by MacKenzie in the near future. An apology should be mandatory and though sincerity cannot be promised the hope that such baseless and derogatory comments will no longer be deemed acceptable regarding Jackson, his children or any party should be established. This sort of disrespect (especially to someone deceased) or their loved ones needs to cease and should not be tolerated especially within the mainstream media.

To email your concerns about MacKenzie and his comments please write to:

ITV This Morning is the show that aired MacKenzie's comments. There is no need to attach your residence address to the top of your email but do please attempt to write in the perspective of a UK viewer so that the complaint will be considered.

Below is an example email. Please do NOT copy and paste this email but use it as a guide to write your own email. Please keep in mind civility and respect receive a better response than emotional tirades. Do not capitalize your entries and refrain from all profanity--also make sure to use a real name and if possible logical email address (not a fan-based name or email address).


"On November 9th, 2010 on ITV "This Morning", ex-Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie commented on the Oprah Winfrey interview with Michael Jackson's parents and children. MacKenzie went too far when he speculated about the biological relationship of Jackson's children to their late father, accused Jackson of criminal misconduct regarding the charges in which Jackson was acquitted in 2005 and insinuated that Michael Jackson was a child molester before a vast audience. MacKenzie then further damaged Jackson's image and delivered a harmful blow by insinuating Jackson's children were better off without him.

His self-serving commentary on national television was utterly repulsive. Jackson himself cannot respond to such comments, obviously. Consequently, Mackenzie breached numerous codes of conduct under the OFCOM Broadcast code (Section 2.2, Section 2.3, Section 7.11, Section 7.9 and Section 7.11 of the code). "This Morning" must surely be aware of MacKenzie's history for making provocative statements and should have known better than to have him on the show. But, by allowing him a platform to voice his opinions on your program, ITV is also responsible for a serious lapse of judgment and care towards viewers. I have never been so offended by content on "This Morning" or any show until now.

MacKenzie’s comments about Michael Jackson and his children were beyond inappropriate. Such comments have no business being aired in a public manner. MacKenzie is entitled to his own derogatory opinions which he can dispel in a private manner but the line was crossed when he was given the opportunity to share those opinions on "This Morning".

MacKenzie's disrespect is beyond just the scope of Jackson--he is also a homophobe and racist.

Since 1993, Jackson has been accused of crimes in which he has never been found guilty. His supposed 'victim' at that time, or moreover his disgruntled father, accepted money rather than 'justice' for his son. The media would rather carry on with hearsay and baseless information about Jackson which began with that one instance instead of speaking about his humanitarianism and music. "This Morning" has now jumped on the bandwagon of tabloid junk like MacKenzie's "Sun" promoting this derogatory and false image of Jackson.

Please understand that this goes beyond just Michael Jackson fans being angry. Of course fans are angry but anyone who is capable of respecting another human being just based on the circumstances known should be angry, too--and they are angry, voicing out on various social outlets like Twitter and Facebook. Michael Jackson went through enough torture during his life, please do not promote the continuance of this sort of torture with his children who have yet to even grow up.

It is my hope that ITV "This Morning" should reconsider ever allowing MacKenzie on their show again and should have the reverence to admit what he said was wrong and in no way support his statements now or anytime in the future.

An apology is certainly in order to the Jackson Family and all the views who had to be subjected to MacKenzie's emotional profanities. Thank you.


Another method of complaint can be done via phone:

ITV DIRECT 1st number : For US dial 0044 8000 30 40 44 and For UK call 08000 30 40 44 That number open from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (GMT) Mon-Fri

2nd number : For US dial 0044 844 881 4150 and For UK call 0844 881 4150. That number open from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (GMT) Mon- Fri

Please take notes before calling so that you will be prepared to make your statement.

Complaints can also be sent to the OFCOM-- the official complaints authority for UK media.

For more information how to complain to the OFCOM please see the following information provided by poster Deborah Ffrench:

Action can obtain the desired response as the "Uncovering of Michael Jackson's Name at Gardner Street Elementary School" campaign servers as an example of this power. Be a part of the movement for something that is justified.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

"Breaking News"--Is It or Is It Not?

I believe somewhere there is a truth upon all the confusion regarding "Breaking News" and the remaining "Cascio tracks" on the upcoming "Michael" album being released by Sony next month.

I am adamant when I say the finished/released version of "Breaking News" is not a Michael Jackson track. It should not be touted as such by any means. It is not arrogant fan (or family) backlash causing this uproar but an accurate interpretation/auditory perception that Michael's vocals are not present on the track, certainly not the majority, especially the main vocals. It does not matter whose vocals the main vocals are--if they are not Michael's vocals, 100%, there is no reason to include this track on the album. It should have never been edited like this nor should Sony have ever tried to pass this off as a "new Michael Jackson track" either. Not even those unaccustomed with Michael's work were fooled by this track--that is how bad it truly is. To pass such a track as a "Michael Jackson" song is a disgrace to Michael's 40 years as a recording artist and insult to millions' intelligence as well. I put the brunt of blame for this fiasco on Sony because it is them who had the final say/approval of this track and it is them who released the track on their web site as a Michael Jackson piece and is continuing to promote it as such.

Finalized "Breaking News" track:

Here is an authentic acapella version of "Breaking News":

(Link removed due to DCMA threat.)

I do believe the above track contains Michael's vocals. Notice the cuts, the long moments of dead silence and then recall other demos/acapella versions of others songs by Michael (YouTube contains many acapella works). Michael's tracks are typically fluid, one continuous track with small noises included such as finger snapping and foot stomping. The lack of these key elements show how highly edited this track truly is and how much splicing has taken place. The finalized version of "Breaking News" shows that Michael's vocals have been completely drowned out by the newly added vocals, further proof that the final version has been heavily "enriched" by another vocalist.

Another Cascio track entitled "Monster":

(Link removed due to DCMA threat.)

I do believe this is Michael's vocals. This snippet reminds me of "2000 Watts" (but in his typical vocal register) and "Shout". The vibrato is fast, there is passion, especially in the opening "uh ohhh oh" which is very much like other songs including "2000 Watts".

So what is my overall conclusion? The "Cascio tracks" do include Michael but Sony would never have let you known that was the truth. The Cascios and people like Teddy Riley have been attacked over this matter when Sony is the one who should be receiving the majority of complaints and backlash for lying to the public. Michael's nephews have been discussing the matter as well and added some insight into this matter which makes sense as well. All the fighting, from my perspective, finds Sony in the middle. Somehow this has become a feud of epic proportions with people hurling insults at one another when had Sony never released "Breaking News" as it did none of us would not be in this situation. Actually, if Michael had not been killed, furthermore had Michael not been lied about in 2005 or 1993 this certainly would not be happening now.

How much of the "Cascio tracks" were recorded in 2007 and how much has been spliced from previous records I do not know--but it has been done. I do not know who did this splicing/editing as I was not in the studio during the process of putting this album together. I know the names of some of the people who have worked on these tracks but likely these tracks have been passed through many hands and stages of approval. I fully believe there are songs out there that could have been added to "Michael" that are indeed tracks Michael would approve of and tracks that would not require any edits/polishing. We know there are many finished outtakes from previous albums like "Bad" and "Dangerous" that could be included. Take for example "Do You Know Where Your Children Are?":

(Link removed due to DCMA threat.)

Why is a track like this apparently not included or not being promoted? What about "A Place with No Name" or "Another Day"? Maybe Sony thinks that they are too "outdated". Well, Sony, in case you have not noticed your sales are really slumping. The music industry is slumping. The "talent" (or lack thereof) in the music industry today should tell you that attempting to turn Michael Jackson into a "new artist" will not please his fans though some in the younger generation may fall for it. I can only see this as a tactic that is abusing Michael's legacy and work or maybe something even more sinister which I will not discuss now. The bulk of Michael Jackson's music will always be better than anything released by any new artist Sony will ever come across. For Sony to attempt to pass off a song like "Breaking News" to the public as a Michael Jackson work is appalling. It has generated a lot of "buzz" which may or may not boost album sales but some who may have not thought to buy the album are at least likely curious now. I have never been a supporter of boycotting Michael's new music but in reality, from what we have seen, this is not Michael's music being released anyway, at least not some of it and because of that I see Sony committing false advertisement in this situation. Sony manipulated Michael Jackson over the years and now they are attempting to manipulate his fans after his death. It shows how corrupt Sony really is and how low they will go.

On a final note, I hate saying this but Michael did have a mild lung disease when he passed away that was chronic in nature. The ability to breathe does change how you can sing. That should be considered when listening to his songs recorded within the last years of his life. Breathing is vital to how you can utilize your vibrato, how long you can hold notes, etc. I do not know if this was a factor for Michael or not in 2007. Regardless, nothing will change the fact that Michael was one of the best vocalists to ever live and any project he would embark on at any time, he would give it his all, all the time. He would want his fans and the public to have the best and as it stands now they are not getting the best. He would never want his fans being taken advantage of in any form, especially not by using his name.

****Though I cannot post links to these tracks I have mentioned above they are not difficult to locate on the internet.****

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Lisa Marie Speaks to Oprah--My Take--Part Two

V. Elvis vs. Michael

Oprah - October 2010
O: Are you struck between the parallel from your father’s life and Michael Jackson’s life? Your father and your former husband?
L: Yes. It really blows me away to be honest with you. I still try to figure out why, what is it that I had to go through twice? Where these two incredible people and I speak with the utmost respect and love for both.
O: Your father and Michael.
L: Yes, who had the same fate. What is it about me? I went through it once and that was painful and I went through it again. I don’t quite understand it, y’know.
O: You thought there was some drug use?
L: Yeah, yeah. There were times when I would pick him up from a certain doctor’s office and he would not be coherent. There was some behavior now looking back at it. I knew that that was, because of injections because they were painful and he would need certain things because he needed to…
O: He would need things for what?
L: Injections or whatever various dermatological…
O: Was this for his skin disease?
L: Skin, various things he needed.

"Drug use was heavily implicated" in Presley's death, writes Guralnick. "No one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills to which he was known to have had a mild allergy." A pair of lab reports filed two months later each strongly suggested that polypharmacy was the primary cause of death; one reported "fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity." Forensic historian and pathologist Michael Baden views the situation as complicated: "Elvis had had an enlarged heart for a long time. That, together with his drug habit, caused his death. But he was difficult to diagnose; it was a judgment call."

The competence and ethics of two of the centrally involved medical professionals were seriously questioned. Before the autopsy was complete and toxicology results known, Medical Examiner Dr. Jerry Francisco declared the cause of death as cardiac arrhythmia, a condition that can be determined only in someone who is still alive. Allegations of a cover-up were widespread. While Presley's main physician, Dr. Nichopoulos, was exonerated of criminal liability for the singer's death, the facts were startling: "In the first eight months of 1977 alone, he had [prescribed] more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines and narcotics: all in Elvis's name." His license was suspended for three months. It was permanently revoked in the 1990s after the Tennessee Medical Board brought new charges of over-prescription.

In 1994, the Presley autopsy was reopened. Coroner Dr. Joseph Davis declared, "There is nothing in any of the data that supports a death from drugs. In fact, everything points to a sudden, violent heart attack." Whether or not combined drug intoxication was in fact the cause, there is little doubt that polypharmacy contributed significantly to Presley's premature death.

By this point, he suffered from multiple ailments—glaucoma, high blood pressure, liver damage, and an enlarged colon, each aggravated, and possibly caused, by drug abuse.

Lisa's Myspace - June 2009
"At some point he paused, he stared at me very intensely and he stated with an almost calm certainty, “I am afraid that I am going to end up like him, the way he did.”

I promptly tried to deter him from the idea, at which point he just shrugged his shoulders and nodded almost matter of fact as if to let me know, he knew what he knew and that was kind of that."

~~~Let me make something clear here:

***Michael Jackson did not die from a drug addiction in any shape or form.***

The only correlation I see between Elvis and Michael is they both died broken by the forces that created their public personas. They died with a lot of pain in their hearts. That is where the similarities end concerning their deaths.

Elvis' died with 14 medications found in his body, 10 in significant quantity. "Polypharmacy" has been suggested to be a possible cause of death--drug abuse is also implicated as a cause of death or contributing factor to his health problems, including glaucoma, high blood pressure, liver damage, and an enlarged colon, and an enlarged heart.

Michael died from one medication, or moreover, the lack of the necessary means/equipment/reason to give this medication with the remaining medications in his system not responsible for his death. All his medications were personally administered to him by Conrad Murray who had complete control of the situation while Michael was likely unconscious. He was not a chronic propofol abuser, he should have never had this drug administered to him in the first place as there is no logical or reason for it to be given for sleep. Of all people, a doctor would know this.

Michael died healthy minus some issues with his lungs that seem to be attributable to something like lupus. He had no organ damage due to drug abuse or any other problem, either. He did not die the result of years of drug abuse--he died from "acute" propofol intoxication, acute meaning "sudden" which was given intravenously by a doctor who knew this medication did not produce any form of sleep.

The fact that Michael came out of a dermatology clinic non-coherent does not mean he had a substance abuse problem. I know this same scenario has been brought back up concerning his visits to Dr. Klein before he passed. It is obvious that he was having procedures done to his face and scalp just by looking at his photos. Refer back to the video of him during the Bashir interview above and count how many times he uses his powder compact. He was not obsessed with looking good--he was so afraid of looking ugly, which is so far removed from the truth, but he attempted to "fix" physical aspects of himself on top of necessary treatments for things like acne scars and vitiligo. He also had issues with discoid lupus affecting his face and scalp, on top of his scalp never healing properly due to the burn he suffered.

Klein has admitted to giving Michael Demerol or Percocet (not both at the same time) before procedures such as administering dermal fillers for pain/sedation recently. This would be considered legitimate use of these medications, that is, it is legitimate to give pain medications and/or anti-anxiety medications for procedures that may cause anxiety or pain. (I will not get into questioning whether or not the doctors were committing malpractice at this time.) What is important is to realize that if someone is addicted to Demerol or Percocet they are not going to be getting a little bit of it here or there a couple times a week--they will need it or want it often if they are addicted which includes craving a substance, and if the addiction is bad enough, they will need it every so many hours, if not multiple times during the hour. For a drug test (ex. urine analysis) to come back negative for Demerol, as Michael's did, a healthy person would have to go about a week without the medication based on the half-life of the metabolites of the drug. If just oxycodone (the narcotic in Percocet) itself is tested it would be about 15 hours before this drug was removed from the body for a non-time released formula though I am sure metabolites are examined and have longer half-lives. Michael's toxicology/drug tests were negative for all pain killers/opioids like Demerol, oxycodone and morphine. There were no such medications in his house, either. I cannot help but draw the conclusion that if he was addicted to these substances he should have had some in the house and his toxicology reports would have been positive for something. Evidence for an addiction to pain killers/narcotics, especially when he died, just does not exist from what we currently know. Addiction to any drug is just not visible from the autopsy report. Propofol, again, is not addictive. It does not cause withdrawals or tolerance drugs of abuse. Even if he had taken pain medications before he died, they nor addiction have anything to do with his death.~~~

VI. Protecting your Father, Hurting your Ex-Husband

Rolling Stone Magazine – April 2003
There were other fault lines opening. Jackson had asked her never to speak about him, and she felt he was taking liberties, particularly in a TV Guide story at the time. “He was quoting me, ‘Lisa Marie told me Elvis had a nose job,’ which is absolute bullshit,” she says. “I think it justified something in his mind — they were asking him about his plastic surgery. I read that, and I threw it across the kitchen."

Playboy - June 2003
"Like when Michael and I split up, he said, “Don’t talk about me.” He never wanted anybody talking about him. I didn’t say a word about him. So the next three interviews I saw, he was talking about me. And I was like, “All bets are off, dude. You did it.”

~~~This just seems so petty but felt I should touch on it. I do not blame him for not wanting anyone to talk about him, it was once in a blue moon that anyone said anything good about him, and certainly the good was is still masked by the bad or the good was made into something bad. Now he is not here to talk about himself anymore, forever silenced, only able to speak through the emotions he left behind on June 25th, 2009.~~~

VII. The Marriage and Divorce

Rolling Stone Magazine – April 2003
“I’d had enough. That’s all.”
You pulled the plug?
“Yes. I told him I wanted a divorce. Then he didn’t talk to me for a couple of weeks.”

Oprah – March 2005
O: Do you think he used you?
L: This seat is hot, let me tell you! Do I think he did? All signs point to yes on that. I can’t answer for him.

Oprah - October 2010
O: I can’t remember the exact month you divorced, but you divorced and several months later, I know by October, it was announced that Debbie Rowe was pregnant. How did you feel about that?
L: Well, I knew it was a bit of a retaliatory act on his part. Because I didn’t have a baby and I know that she was there the whole time telling him she would do it.

~~~First, let me say this, please do not defend your marriage anymore Lisa. You consistently do it to defend yourself and your actions and your emotions, not Michael's, when not many are questioning your motives--they are questioning Michael's motives and sexuality which is not any of their damn business. I personally could not care less what went on in the bedroom when you two were together. It is not anyone's business, either, and I would think someone as bold as you would not care what others think and would tell them such. Your marriage to Michael is history. The media twisted the marriage just like they twisted him--into something it was not. If you speak about your marriage in the future I hope you will tell us about the wonderful times you spent as a husband and wife.

As for Michael retaliating against you by having children, I cannot believe this for one second. He wanted children and he wanted them with you first and foremost--that is part of the reason he married you. You chose not to go forth with such actions which was likely a good decision--a custody battle would have destroyed him. I just wish you had been up front about it with him first, then again, I am not sure if he would have married you then.

Children were always a source of unconditional love for Michael. He needed that love and innocence in his life to help him escape the pressures of his life and had no other way to go about it without you wanting to have another child. Your two children had a devoted father in their lives. You were a young mother. He was 38 years old when Prince was born. He could not wait forever. I am so happy he had his children in his life--they were everything to him, especially in the end. They brought him light in a very dark world.

Michael never beat you, never tried to kill you, never tried to hurt you be it physically or emotionally. He tried to make it work, we all get inadvertently hurt in relationships. For what appears to be at most an emotionally-exhausting marriage/divorce it seems to have brought about so much bitterness for you and it still persists even after his death. Please, let it go. He never meant to hurt you Lisa.~~~

VIII. Personal Health Scare

The Independent – July 2003
The marriage remained a bizarrely public one – the couple being interview on US TV, seemingly happy to answer even the most intimate questions (yes, they were a regular couple; yes, they had sex) – but Presley became increasingly wary that she was merely a pawn in Jackson’s PR rebuilding exercise. Exasperated by his increasingly erratic behavior, she divorced him three years later, and promptly fell ill with stress. She suffered from panic attacks, suspected asthma, hypoglycemia, and had her gall bladder removed. The tabloids were convinced she was trying to kill herself, and her depression deepened, she lived on a diet of chicken and broccoli, and lost a lot of weight. Eventual salvation came from some unlikely advice: a homeopathic doctor told her to have the fillings in her teeth removed because mercury fillings, as she so succinctly puts it, “can make you go fucking crazy”. As soon as she had them taken out, her health started to improve.

Jane Magazine - September 2003
When her marriage to MJ fell apart after 20 months, so did she. “I was insane, and nobody could tell me what was wrong. I was trying to pull myself out of somebody else’s world, somebody else’s way of thinking.” At that time, she went under the care of a doctor who sounds totally psycho.

“She was the most treacherous soul, she was like fucking Nurse Retched. She gave me too many pills, which created a problem with my stomach, which led to my gall bladder failing. So, I get it taken out, and she came into the hospital and said [using a spooky voice], ‘It was the most beautiful gall bladder I’ve ever seen.’”

~~~I am sorry, I just cannot buy that "fillings" caused all these hideous illnesses. I know people will disagree with me--that is fine, and I am not saying they may not cause some health problems sometimes. I have heard things like people can pick up radio signals from metal fillings and such but I figure there is more mercury in our water, our vaccines and fish than teeth fillings (though that is just a guess). I do believe in natural medicine but my take on this was it was purely emotional pain from the divorce because you loved him. I know Scientology frowns upon psychiatry but I am speaking from the heart, not the mind.

Now, recall all that pain, the feeling of being ill and imagine what Michael felt like when he had to experience the 2005 trial. Removal of fillings would not have solved his problems.~~~

IX. Did He Love You?

Oprah--October 2010
L: Puppeteering – manipulating to some degree. It’s true but, see and I always confused that manipulation, thinking that that manipulation meant he didn’t love me. But I understand it better now. The manipulation was because it was a survival tactic for him.
O: Was it the kind of marriage where a lot of things went unsaid or unspoken or did you feel a sense of intimacy and connection, that you could ask him anything?
L: I honestly can tell you that it was in every sense a normal marriage and everything was spoken. In the middle of the night, if he needed to wake up and tell me, bounce something off me, and wake me up and wanna talk… if there was trouble…

~~~I cannot believe after all this time the question of "did he love you" still exists even if you are more accepting to it now than before. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen you question this man's love for you and are just now coming to terms that maybe he did, just maybe. It should not have taken his death to entertain this possibility. There is one word I see over and over again and sadly it is not "love" -- it is "manipulation". Stop listening to your mother and the media and know this man loved you. Michael did not manipulate you--the media did and it did a damn good job at it, too, because you are still not convinced he loved you. You can SEE the love he had for you--I pray someday you will be able to feel it like I can see it.

Sometimes people build walls around themselves to deal with the pressures of life. Michael built a wall around himself to survive. He is not the only one to build a wall around himself, either. Some build it upon themselves in a physical manner like him--others build purely emotional walls which prevent them from expressing what they really feel.

He allowed you to past his wall and allowed you to join him in what amounted to his life, as abnormal as it was, but it was as normal as it could get for him. He married you with no pre-nuptial agreement regardless than you had your own money. He never said one foul comment about you once you divorced, certainly nothing I would call foul or disrespectful. His love may have been immature to some degree but it was his first marriage and likely his first "real" relationship given the wall he put around himself because he was afraid of being hurt and used. Like you said, sometimes you both would argue for three days, only taking a break to eat and sleep. He wanted it to work--give him some credit. He wanted to be with you because he loved you very much.

It is not difficult to see in photographs of you both that he loved you. His body language in photographs speak volumes. The only photos I see him comfortable in are photos with children--and you. He shared that comfort with good friends Elizabeth Taylor and Brooke Shields, too. But, when you see a photo like this one below, you cannot help but see the love this man had for you:

Go back and look at the photographs with other people, other women especially. Look at his hands, the squaring of his body, his closeness to them (or lack thereof). It is not there--except with you and the others I mentioned above.

Yes, Michael did love you as much as he could. He may have never let himself love someone completely as he was too afraid of being hurt--he had to protect himself especially after 1993. He had been hurt too many times, seen the hurt of others too many times as well, but it seems the ones who hurt him were the ones he least expected to do such.

I have sat and read this letter over and over again. Is it fake? Is it real? I think I finally figured it out. It likely is real and it was about you. Maybe you did not receive it, maybe you were not meant to receive it, maybe you are not even addressed in the letter but there is no doubt that if he did in fact write this it was you in his thoughts. I know he said in the past that his heart had hardened, that he had moved on--what he really meant was he was afraid of being hurt again. I am sure at times he struggled to really understand why it did not work out between both of you, especially when he tried so hard and he loved you, and he reminisced about what he wished could have been for both of you. He just wanted to understand it all just like you did, too.

After reading all of the interviews and especially seeing the Oprah show this past week--one cannot help but question now, did you really love him? I think you did but why you will not allow yourself to really express it, I do not know. Lisa, Michael is gone. We all make mistakes and we all have regrets. No relationship is perfect. I wish you felt compelled in your heart to do more for him than you are doing now. He may no longer be the love of your life but he will always be a part of your life. Let it be an object of beauty and not regret.~~~

X. Conclusion
I sit here asking, how much of the Oprah show from this year was discussed before the actual interview (perhaps, like, on the hike)? How much is honest and fact and how much is assumed? Why did your eyes keep drifting when you spoke about Michael? I was shocked at the inability to remember exactly how Michael proposed to you. I was also shocked that none of the "highest of highs" aka the good times were not discussed but when the "lowest of the lows" were asked about by Oprah, none could really be mentioned.

You also said you were shocked by his death when you heard the news, you did not cry, you were just in shock. If you knew he was in such trouble, had so many issues, how could it have been a shock to you, then? Did you really think his problems were that bad or not?

I saw any attempts at helping this man as futile regarding this last interview. I wish you would defend him with the heart of a lioness, but at minimum, please stop blaming him for all the wrongs in your life. I personally do not know how you do not feel as compelled to stand up for him as you do for your father--you said you loved them both but you discuss them so differently. I hope for Michael's sake you do not speak about him anymore if subsequent interviews are to be like the one that recently aired. Many fans would love to hear about the wonderful times you had together, the good things you did together for others, the fun moments you shared. There are plenty of us out there, like myself, who defend Michael and try to help restore his legacy on a daily basis. Since Michael died he never leaves my thoughts, ever. My greatest problem is I am not blessed to have any form of an audience besides my friends and the few that stumble upon my blog. Many of us who defend him do not have the first-hand experience with his man thus our credibility is limited, too. I do not have to have known him to know he needs someone in his corner fighting for him, fighting for the truth, fighting to make his legacy actual reflect the person.

As much as I hate to say this, you may have not been able to save him but you could have done more, much more. I would never want to make someone feel guilty about something like that, in some ways I think we ALL could have done more for him, but I guess my main point is it's never too late to try and right a wrong.

I think it is so upsetting that throughout all the years nothing was ever mentioned about drug abuse or addiction until he is gone. Why now? Why do that much more damage to him? The worst part about all of this is that he did not even die from addiction--he was killed by the hands of another human being yet he is being painted out to be some other celebrity who succumbed to drugs. He was afraid and his fear was not far removed from reality. He was killed and his death is not much different had someone shot him with a gun instead.

To be discussing suspected drug abuse during this time is agonizing. It would be wise to keep mum on the topic for his sake and out of pure respect for one of the most disrespected men to ever live. Murray's potential trial is lingering in the balance while he hammers it hard that Michael is dead because he made Murray give him propofol due to...addiction and/or demands. Wrong, but I will not get into that right now. Plus, last time I checked the speculation does nothing to help his legacy. Whether he had some dependency issues in the past has no relevance or benefit today especially due to the nature of his death--the topic should be avoided at all costs. I cannot emphasize this enough. It does nothing to help him or his legacy or non-fans' view of this man and could taint the jury for Murray's trial, if not that, it will certainly mar his legacy forever. That is not fair. I know life is not fair but it should not be this unfair. Michael was never given the break he deserved, he never got that "happy ending" he deserved more than anyone.

Source for Interviews: