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:

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/



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 (http://www.mjworld.net/news/2009/07/18/tom-mesereau-speaks/). 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 (http://www.mjcafe.net/interviews/globe.htm). 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 (http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_michael-jackson-hated-needles-says-pal-mark-lester_1272831). 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:


http://rlbatesmd.blogspot.com/2007/12/skin-complications-from-drug-abuse.html

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:

Before:




After:


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_expansion

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. (http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/michael-jackson-doctors-and-nurse-cleared-in-king-of-pop-death-1018701.php)



Lupus

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)

http://www.lupus.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/new_learndiagnosing.aspx?articleid=2241&zoneid=524

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: http://members.shaw.ca/systemiclupus/skin.html

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 (http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/49034/quincy-jones-michael-jackson-bleached-skin-because-he-didnt-want-to-be-black). 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. (http://www.pulmonaryfibrosis.org/ipf)

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. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/expert.q.a/02/09/fingernails.discolored.shu/index.html)

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:

http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html

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:

http://tinyurl.com/238kbw9

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:

viewerservices@itv.com

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:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82904&page=11

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.

"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:

http://breakingnews.michaeljackson.com/ROW/

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.****

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.

Wikipedia
"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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DogQhVI2q_s

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:
http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/1993-1998-lisa-marie-presley/

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

First, let me say I do not hate Lisa Marie Presley and I do not want anyone thinking that based on what I have written below. I would describe my feelings towards her as "indifferent". In the past I felt a lot of sympathy for her and assumed anger, a tough exterior and a broken heart fueled most of her comments and actions taken towards Michael. As of current, I am not sure what to think anymore--I thought this most recent show on Oprah would have been a bit of a "tribute", filled with heartfelt emotions, sadness and sympathy--I felt very cold after watching it and the only word I kept recalling was "drugs"--though never have drugs been discussed as a problem by her--until now.

I have decided to take a circumferential view at all the things she has said in the past about Michael and compare it to now while giving my commentary in the mix. It is a semi-open letter to Lisa only because in some instances it is just easier to address it as if I were telling Lisa my feelings. I do not expect her to read my blog though if she did I would have no regrets.

My commentary is bolded and included within "~~~".

I. "Living with Michael Jackson"

Rolling Stone Magazine – April 2003
Like everybody else, she saw Martin Bashir’s interview with Michael Jackson. “I watched it and cringed,” she says. “I had the same reaction everybody else had — it was like watching a train wreck. It seemed like it was overly cruel — the guy [Bashir] had his agenda and was after him. I don’t make a habit of feeling bad for that guy [Jackson], because he kind of likes to push that sympathy button sometimes, and I don’t really go for it anymore, but that time I did. I was, ‘Oh, no, you really just got screwed.’ It honestly looked to me like, it would be like somebody walking into a convalescent home and just antagonizing someone and having it on film the whole time.”

LA Times – April 2003
“I did see the British program, and it does look like he was set up,” she responds. “But, no, I could never feel sorry for Michael Jackson.”

Enough Rope – March 2004
A: In the Martin Bashir documentary on Jackson, did you recognize him as the man you’d been married to?
L: No, but I thought there was agenda there. You can edit eight months’ worth of footage to look any way you want it to look. But I never saw any behavior like that when I was with him or if I did it was so brief. There were so many sides to him but they seemed to want one particular side in the documentary. The whole thing, to me, was like someone going into a hospital and badgering a patient. It was like he was antagonizing him and it was cruel. Unnecessarily. And that’s screwed up.

Oprah - October 21st, 2010
O: By 2005 was when he was on trial with the second charge. Your feelings at that time were what?
L: He was calling me about it and I said “Please keep your head together, please. If this goes to trial, please hold it together.” He said, “What are you talking about, what do you mean?” And he said, “You mean drugs?” And I said, “Yes.” Because all I saw was random things coming out, whether it was Martin Bashir and all these interviews, and in those interviews I saw him intoxicated. I didn’t see the Michael that I knew in that Martin Bashir interview. He was high as a kite, from what I saw and from what I knew.
O: Really?
L: He was either too speedy or he was sedated. It wasn’t the Michael that I knew.
O: The shocking things, he said some pretty shocking things in that Martin Bashir interview, particularly about how he felt about how it was okay to sleep with young children.
L: I think he said that stuff sometimes to be defiant, because he got so angry at having been accused. He was such a stubborn little rebel at times and he was like a child and he would just say what he felt everyone didn’t want him to say. I don’t feel like he had a straight head during those things and I think that they were edited in a very, very manipulative nasty way.

~~~I hate how suspected drug abuse is now thrown into this mix when never, ever before has it been mentioned.

How could you not feel sorry for this man when he opened up his life to the world, to try and have them understand him, only to be manipulated and made out to be some type of monster when that is the furthest thing from the truth? He was not a saint but he was not Satan, either, and that is exactly what the media attempted (and attempts, still) to turn him into--a predator, a liar, a fake. His legacy and career were already damaged from the allegations in1993--this documentary destroyed the remaining cheerfulness in his life when he did nothing to deserve such pain.

So now in his death, it goes from "he was set up" and Bashir having an "agenda" and seeing the cruelty of what happened to him even if there was a lack sympathy, with no mention of drugs, to "he was high as a kite, from what I saw and from what I knew." I have seen "Living with Michael Jackson" and I cannot agree with him appearing to be "high as a kite" or "sedated". There were times he did seem agitated but that could be attributed to just about anything. Even if medications were at any point altering his mood in some way, the use of medications for legitimate medical purpose is not abuse or addiction and Michael did have medical issues which required medications from time to time. This observation of him "intoxicated" nothing more than a distant assumption, one I do not feel should be made at this time or any time in the future.

To the best of my knowledge, Bashir has never mentioned drug use (which would be shocking for him to omit that if he saw or thought such) and numerous other individuals around him have denied ever seeing him intoxicated or having a problem with medications including Tom Mesereau, Dr. Patrick Treacy, David Nordahl and Cherilyn Lee, among others . We must remember that he was being filmed for this fiasco, he was the center of attention for this documentary, it was "show time". Christian Audigier has also mentioned that at times he believes Michael would "show out"--he never saw any signs of a problem when they spent time together. Bashir picked up on Michael "performing" during "Living with Michael Jackson" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xCKixAtO5M&feature=related

To insinuate he was under the influence during the filming of "Living with Michael Jackson" is especially devastating to me given at that time he was a single parent to three children and spent time with other children as well. The safety and well-being of his children as well as other children were of his top priority--children and their well-being were everything to him. Nothing could pain me more than to have his parenting of his precious children under form of scrutiny when he was, to me, the most loving, caring, doting and devoted father to his children and a wonderful surrogate father/brother to other children as well. His children were his life--not drugs. Perhaps this was not to be insinuated but the conclusion can and will be drawn now based on such statements by people who know no better--and there are plenty of them out there.

I know that I will be saying this over and over again in this blog but before one speaks about medications and such topics as use, abuse, addiction, dependence and pharmacology they need to know what the medications are in the first place. Individuals who assume he had an addiction problem assume there was problem yet can give no specifics because nothing is concrete. He died from a drug called propofol that has NO relation to pain narcotics. Its effects are limited to a short duration of time--the time in which you are unconscious. There is no lingering "high" or "low", no linger craving or withdrawal. There is no correlation to what may or may not have been occurring in 2002-2003 and to how he died in 2009--so why make such assumptions that do nothing to benefit him or his legacy?~~~

II. The Allegations

Oprah - October 2010
O: You know, I’ve asked you this and I have to ask it again, even though it’s an uncomfortable subject, but whether or not you had ever seen any inappropriate behavior between Michael and young children?
L: Are you asking me again?
O: I’m asking you again.
L: The answer is absolutely not, in any way. I did not see anything like that.
O: So you never saw anything and to this day you don’t believe any of those charges were true?
L: No. I honestly cannot say, the only people who are going to be able to say the truth are him and whoever was in that room at the time it allegedly took place. I was never in the room, it wouldn’t be fair for me to… I can tell you I never saw anything like that.

~~~Margaret Maldonado does a better job at defending Michael in her book, in my opinion. One of Margaret's recollections about her sons spending time with Michael in November 1994 is such a beautiful story. "Who helped you with your homework?", she asked them. "Uncle Michael!!!" Where are your stories Lisa? We would love to hear stories like that from you.

Being that you lived with him, were married to him, that you allowed your children to spend time with him--people are quick to pay attention to what you have to say about the allegations and will give your word some credibility and authority. I cannot believe you would ever cast doubt upon the man you married, especially given what we all (that is, the readers of my blog) know about Evan Chandler and the Arvizos, that is, the facts about them and their deceitful ways. Did you know Michael at all, Lisa? I think you did, better than you realize. You analyze him too much--I know Oprah kept pushing the agenda but you should and could have put her in her place for Michael's sake. Who do you love or care about more? Oprah or Michael?

This timid, half-assed defending of Michael regarding the allegations does not do this man justice. These allegations are partly the reason this man is lying in a grave somewhere and his children are now parentless. These allegations are why I and millions of others did not give this man and his music a chance to come into our hearts while he was alive. He came into my heart once it was already too late and that makes me sick to admit that but people need to understand the implications of how these allegations affected his life and now linger into his death.

Let your "cousin" Oprah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9lSDI0KS3I) try to ask me what I think about the allegations someday and I will tell her that I'd bet my life on Michael's innocence, then I would tell her to give Tom Mesereau and possibly Geraldine Hughes a call and drop it for once and all and just accept that Michael Jackson was not a child molester nor a pedophile. She should read up on the facts, interview the two I just mentioned above, and help spread the truth about him, not dehumanize him or remain defiantly aloof to the truth so she can score ratings. Not everyone accused of molestation is a molester. Evidence proves Michael was extorted. We are his voice now and we owe it to him to get the truth out whenever possible and to never back down so at least some of the ignorance can be eradicated.~~~

III. The 2005 Trial

Enough Rope – March 2004
A: And when you look at that man now, and I’m not asking you to say what’s going on now because you can’t possibly know, but when you look at him, how do you feel about him? Do you feel sorry for him, do you feel for him still?
L: I, I you know ta- I can’t, it’s really bizarre, I feel nothing. It’s just, I watch just like anyone else when anything’s going on and I have the same reaction and wow or you know holy shit or whatever, it’s whatever people are doing I’m doing the same thing. That’s, well with nothing attached any more, which is, it took a long time but that’s where it’s at now.

Toronto Sun – April 2005
How does she avoid media coverage of the Jackson trial? “It’s really, really easy,” she says. “For one thing, I’m very busy. I’ve probably slept six hours in the last four days. If the radio’s on with it, I don’t listen. If it’s on TV, I don’t look. I’m so bored with it, I’m so done with it, I can’t even look - I’m not with him, nor have I been for a very long time.”

Larry King Live – April 2005
K: A supporter? And now you’re neutral?
L: I’m just benign really.

Oprah - October 2010
O: When was the last time you spoke to him?
L: Coherently good conversation? Sometime in 2005. It was a very long conversation. I was so removed from him and he could feel it and he could hear it. And I think that’s one of the things that killed me in the end too was that I was very distanced and he was checking to get a read, he was trying to throw a line out to see if I would bite emotionally and I wouldn’t. I was pretty shut off at that point. I don’t even know how I managed to be like that but I was. He was asking me, he wanted to tell me that I was right about a lot of the people around him, that it had panned out to be exactly what he and I had talked about years ago. He asked if I still loved him and we went into a whole thing about that and I told him I was indifferent and he didn’t like that word and he cried. He was trying to find out where I was at and how I could become so detached. Then the final part of the conversation was him telling me that he felt that someone was going to try to kill him to get a hold of his catalogue and his estate.
O: So he actually gave you names?
L: He did. And I’d rather not say them. But he expressed to me that his concern over his life.

~~~First, I hope you have gone to the police with these names.

How could you feel nothing for someone whom you once thought you would spend the rest of your life with? It is words like these that make me realize why he spent more time with children rather than adults. He knew children loved him and he loved them equally, innocently. Love should not be conditional.

So who cut who out of their life? You kept saying he made people "disposable"--including yourself. He was calling you. He was reaching out to you in times of stress. You were seen spending time with him off and on for years after the marriage was over so you were not "disposed of" by any means. He tried to reach out to you, make things work out for years after the divorce and you shut him out in 2005 apparently because you did not care anymore about him at that time, not even enough to offer him some sort of sympathy as a fellow human being who was hurting and suffering at the hands of others.

The trial that Michael had to endure reminds me a lot of a soldier who has been off to war. They come back a changed person, likely suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They are hurt and traumatized, exposed to a facet of life few will ever see or feel. They want to reach out to someone, anyone familiar and whom they love. Imagine a solider reaching out to an ex-wife wanting some sort of solace after he had been through the war. Michael needed someone to tell him they loved him, someone he trusted--and loved. He was denied what he sought so desperately--just to know someone cared about him and loved him, still, after all he was going through and had gone through during that time. It was always important to him that he be loved--that is why he did all that he did in life and there were many times in his life he did not feel he was loved. I cannot imagine the pain he would have felt questioning if anyone in the world still loved him with no one there to tell him yes. What did Michael do to deserve any of this pain? Nothing.

I personally could never tell someone who went through what Michael did that I did not love him, even if that love had evolved over time into some other type of love. I do not blame him for trying to figure out why you were so detached because I do not understand it either. Someday it will hit you like a ton of bricks and it will hurt because he is not here for you to reach out to anymore. He can never call you again for you to have that second chance to try and patch things up. He really is gone. If only we could turn back time, as Cher once sang...

The image of him crying after being told you felt "indifferent" will forever be burned in my mind as one of the saddest and lowest moments of his life, especially for someone who cared about everyone else but himself. After all, he ended up doing "This Is It" for mankind, for the world, the children--not himself. In the end, it led to his death no matter how you look at it. All the things he went through in life, he never gave up his will to live, even when he felt abandoned and alone. That is true strength.

I do not know how Michael survived the trial. It must have been the love of his children that got him through the ordeal.~~~

IV. HBO Appearance - 1995

Newsweek – April 2003
"No, it wasn’t mutual. He was in the hospital, and I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with him. I started asking questions, and it was always a different story. He said I was 'causing trouble' and 'stirring up problems.' He told me, 'you’re making my heart rate go up,' and asked me to go home, and I said, 'Good. I want out.' This person is one of the biggest entertainers out there. He is not stupid. He’s very charming when he wants to be, and when you go into his world you step into this whole other realm. I could tell you all about the craziness – all these things that were odd, different, evil or not cool – but it still took me two and a half years to get my head out of it.

Playboy - June 2003
P: It was reported that you asked him for a divorce while he was in the hospital recovering from “exhaustion.”
L: Not true. There was a bit of a showdown in the hospital, and I didn’t understand what was wrong with him. I didn’t know what he was up to. When I started asking too many questions about what was wrong, he asked me to leave. This is the real story. He said, “You’re causing trouble.” The doctors wanted me to go. I freaked out, because it was all too familiar. When he got out, I called him and said, “I want out.”

Oprah - October 2010
O: Okay, so in May of 1994 when you were married to him or during the time that you were married to him, did you suspect a drug problem?
L: Honestly, I didn’t really suspect and catch on until just before I filed for divorce. There was just an occasion, an incident, where he had collapsed and he was in the hospital.
O: This was for HBO?
L: Yeah, there was an appearance he was supposed to make.
(In December 1995 Michael Jackson collapsed onstage while rehearsing for an HBO concert special in New York. His doctors said Michael was suffering from a viral infection. Lisa Marie flew to his side in the hospital where he stayed for six days.)
L: Everybody flew to the hospital. And, um, it was very confusing what was wrong, because every day there was a different report. I couldn’t tell what was happening. Dehydration, low blood pressure, exhaustion, a virus, so I couldn’t really get a straight answer as to what was happening with him. I think we were all a little bit in the dark. At that point I think I really got from various indications I believed that was going on then.

Dr. Alleyne - July 2009

http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/node/820899

“Mr. Jackson was in critical condition,” Alleyne said. “He was dehydrated. He had low blood pressure. He had a rapid heart rate. He was near death.”

Alleyne gave the order to have the defibrillator ready if needed to treat the abnormal heart rhythm of the most famous entertainer with the best rhythm on Earth.

After about an hour or so that December dusk, Alleyne said he had Jackson stabilized with intravenous fluids and other treatment, and transferred Jackson to intensive care.

After about 72 hours, Alleyne and Jackson's publicists and others realized they had to give a press conference. So Alleyne worked with Jackson's people to go over what could be said, what to stay away from but still tell the truth. Alleyne was blunt with the world, saying Jackson did not have any immune system problems because rumors about AIDS were swirling. He was blunt that Jackson had no drugs in his system.

News accounts from 1995 show Alleyne and his then-partner, Dr. Bob Glennon, talking about Jackson's condition to convince the world that Jackson was, in fact, critically ill.

~~~Scientology's View of "Drugs":

http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/is-it-okay-to-take-any-sort-of-drugs-when-you-are-in-scientology.html

"Drugs are essentially poisons. The degree they are taken determines the effect. A small amount acts as a stimulant. A greater amount acts as a sedative. A large amount acts as a poison and can kill one dead."

This statement could not be any further from the truth (notice it correlates with the depiction of him being "high as a kite or sedated" during "Living with Michael Jackson"). Depending on what receptors within the body a drug interacts with determines how a drug effects a person physically. Some drugs will only stimulate. Some will only sedate. Some will do neither or may do one or the other depending on the individual. Dosing has nothing to do with it. Some drugs are dangerous but are necessary for livelihood and survival. Anything put into the body can be labeled a poison, including some of the foods we eat. No one will sit there and tell me that someone with schizophrenia should not be treated with antipsychotic medications or a person in pain should not be allowed to take pain medication.

I cannot help but see how Scientology would be appealing to former addicts and/or those who have seen the effects of what addiction can do to a loved one. I also cannot help but see Scientology thinking everyone has a drug issue and blaming all problems in life on some type of drug abuse/addiction issue when in some cases such does not exist. Is this what is happening to Michael now especially because of the confusion regarding his death?
In my opinion, this sort of view on medication can be very hurtful to people who suffer from legitimate issues (including Michael who suffered from physical pain and injuries over the years) and can cloud people's view of what is "addiction" really is. I have seen too many times where people suffer and even die from loved ones' fears they have become or will become an "addict" to a substance that can be used to treat their ailment. This type of misunderstanding is an epidemic across the country.

You were an addict once yourself before you become a Scientologist Lisa. You should be able to know when there is a problem, with certainty, and should have seen things throughout the marriage, day after day that were indicative of some sort of problem. You stated to Oprah, " I didn’t really suspect and catch on until just before I filed for divorce. There was just an occasion, an incident, where he had collapsed and he was in the hospital." You said this one incident caused your divorce yet you had no idea a problem was even there during the marriage--you only assumed an addiction apparently in retrospect, especially given his manner of death (which I will get into shortly). You also stated, " At that point I think I really got from various indications I believed that was going on then." You "think" is not good enough. Assumptions should not be stated as facts and not be allowed to be taken as fact. This reminds me too much of how people handled the molestation allegations--they assumed this or that and determined it MUST be fact. NO. That is not how facts are established. How can you make an assumption like this about someone whom needs to be defended from all the bullshit out there about him?

It is hard to comment on what did or did not happen in the hospital since I was not there but I cannot help but imagine there was no straight answer because of the tension going on between the both of you beforehand. A "wall" had been established by anger by both of you. I think it would only be natural when something does not make sense to assume the worst, especially when you have witnessed the "worst" yourself as a child--the fear of that happening to someone else, especially one you care about, is always lurking in the back of the mind.

What Dr. Alleyne discusses sounds very logical, that he was dehydrated due to a virus (ex. gastrointestinal virus) in addition to physical activity in preparation of the special and this caused some serious electrolyte imbalances (ex. low potassium) due to the loss of fluids which then caused his heart to go into a dangerous rhythm which would cause loss of consciousness. Dehydration/arrhythmias can cause low blood pressure (one usually loses consciousness if their blood pressure is too low). It is a known fact that Michael pushed it too hard sometimes. This was man known to be intravenously fed while on tour because he could not eat and lost too much fluids just from performing. On June 29, 1999 he kept performing despite a catastrophic failure in the props for "Earth Song" in Germany:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq4hi8Ep7qk&feature=fvsr
Karen Faye has said from the incident that he told her afterwards:

"You know Turkle, the only thing that I heard in my head, was my father's voice saying to me, MICHAEL, DON'T DISAPPOINT THE AUDIENCE!"

He was not a machine--he was merely a mortal man but at times he pushed himself harder than he should have.~~~