Michael Jackson Did Not Administer Propofol to Himself--A Medical Perspective
Introduction:
A few months ago I caught wind that Conrad Murray's defense strategy was going to put the blame on none other than the victim--Michael Jackson--in a way I never thought possible--by saying Jackson delivered the fatal dose of propofol to himself during Murray's supposed 120-second absence from the room. For Murray to imply this chain of events is a gross disrespect for the victim he claims was a "friend". I thought initially this defense was a bogus tabloid report, after all, Jackson's death was ruled by experts to be "homicide via injection from another". Thus, this defense strategy goes against the entire ruling of death by experts who I hope will testify and back up their (what I believe to be correct) conclusion--if there is a trial.
Before this hideous accusation of self-injection by Jackson, Murray had been trying to shift blame on Jackson all along through other methods, such as claiming he demanded propofol from him, essentially forcing him to do it. Murray did and still does possess free will. The exact wording of the Las Vegas search warrant states, "Jackson remained awake and at approximately 1040 hours Murray finally administered 25 mg of propofol diluted with lidocaine, via IV drip to keep Jackson sedated, after repeated demands/requests from Jackson." First, there was no IV drip delivering propofol as there was no manual/electronic pump to do so. The only drip used was a gravity-fed saline drip per the autopsy report. Second, you do not dilute propofol with lidocaine. Third, how is someone who is being kept sedated in fact wide awake and making repeated demands and/or requests? I pray the police and DA are carefully examining every word and every shred of evidence presented to them. I do not know if they are or not, but I believe if they were examining the evidence closer, the charges presented would be much higher than involuntary manslaughter.
Murray's false claim that Jackson self-injected, which will be examined in detail shortly, even if true still avoids providing plausible explanations for such issues as: the massive lapse in time (approximately 90 minutes) that Murray allowed to pass without rendering sufficient aid, lacking proper devices to render aid (the Ambu-bag was apparently part of the paramedics' paraphernalia as if Jackson was not breathing but had a pulse then Murray should have used the Ambu-bag with oxygen rather than performing mouth-to-mouth CPR; the autopsy report states the Ambu-bag was not even connected to the oxygen tank that was reported empty on 07/13/2009, rendering this life-saving object useless and likely unused), why Murray was seen toting oxygen tanks which without sufficient equipment were insufficient to treat apnea from propofol administration, why he performed CPR in a bed, why he did not get Jackson to the hospital when he was merely 4 minutes away, why he did not call 911 upon discovering Jackson yet had been using a cell phone that morning, why Jackson did not recover from the apnea when most people recover in less than 3 minutes, why there were "multiple opened bottles of propofol found, with small amounts of remaining drug", etc.? These are all questions desperately needing answers.
Murray also withheld information from paramedics, UCLA staff, and for two days, police. Admitting to only administering Ativan and saline prevented health care staff from determining what they were really treating. Treatment for propofol intoxication would likely have only been supportive/symptomatic but Murray should have been honest about what he had been administering Jackson, especially if some sort of accident (and should have administered appropriate supportive/symptomatic care to Jackson himself). Why lie, then, and how does a patient get denied such elementary care when a doctor is present and getting paid $150,000 a month to make sure the patient remains alive? How does one fail a patient like Murray failed Jackson when he has been a physician for 20 years? Murray deliberately, for whatever reasons, made no attempt to revive or save Jackson's life regardless of whom or what administered the medications based on information we know. In addition, by him refusing to declare Jackson deceased at the residence he delayed making the residence a crime scene which has without a doubt compromised this case and allowed room for corruption (see http://law.justia.com/california/codes/gov/27490-27512.html).
Discussion Regarding TMZ Live's Video Aired on 04/05/2010 Which Discusses the "Suicide Theory":
Please view the following video: http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=54706d3d-e4e4-4f6a-b092-a55d8875de4a
Experts' Analysis Against Self-Administration:
From the autopsy report on page 11, in regard to the support of homicide, statement number four states, "(t)he circumstances do not support self administration of propofol."--Dr. Christopher Rogers and Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran
From Dr. Selma Calmes' report contained within the autopsy report:
"Could the decedent have given propofol to himself? It is unknown where the propofol physically came from. It would have been difficult for the patient to administer the drugs (others besides propofol were administered) to himself, given the configuration of the IV set-up. The IV catheter was in the left leg. The injection port of the IV tubing was 13.5 cm from the tip in the catheter. He would have had to bend his knee sharply or sit up to reach the injection port and push the syringe barrel, an awkward situation, especially if sleep was the goal. If only bolus injections via a syringe were used, sleep would not have been maintained, due to the short action of propofol. Someone with medical knowledge or experience would have started the IV. Anyone could have drawn up and administered the medications after the IV was started."
Please keep in mind that anyone could administer the drug but the IV configuration limited if not completely barred Jackson from being capable of giving it to himself nor was he skilled at IV injections. Also, the autopsy report says, "(l)ividity was consistent with a supine position" meaning when he expired and as fluids settled it was consistent with him lying down on his back. Dr. Calmes said he would either have to have bent his knee sharply or sat up in order to inject himself--his knee was not bent nor does lividity in the supine position support him expiring while sitting up and being left in this position. Murray could have placed his body in the supine position before lividity set in, but if this were the case, would that not mean Murray likely was in Jackson's presence during a time in which he should have saved his life and failed to do so? It could also mean Jackson remained in the supine position throughout Murray's medical "care" that night, further supporting that Murray was the only one to administered drugs to Jackson.
Syringe Size Debacle:
Perhaps one of the most pivotal errors in this defense is the claim that Jackson injected himself with the remaining contents of a 20 mL bottle of propofol. Only 10 mL syringes were available and used. This means Jackson could only inject 100 mg (10 mL) in one inoculation because of the very rapid onset of action of propofol. This dose should have in fact rendered him unconscious, unable to subsequently inject the remaining 75 mg (7.5 mL) until the preceding dose of propofol had worn off. He would have then had to have awaken to have injected the remaining 75 mg, representing another bout of unconsciousness only as long as 75 mg would keep him unconscious. It is impossible that Jackson gave himself 175 mg of propofol at one time based on medical supplies available. If Jackson was given more than 100 mg at one time then someone else had to do it to him as an unconscious man cannot manually administered drugs to himself.
What is a "Massive Overdose" and how Likely is Suicide/Accidental Overdose with Propofol?
Harvey Levin states that the bottle (a 20 mL bottle) was a "massive overdose". This is far from being true. Death from excessive propofol abuse by Iwersen-Bergmann, et al. states, " (t)he risk of death due to a self-administered propofol intoxication is very low, primarily due to the low concentration found in commercial ampoules (20 mL containing 200 mg). This is equivalent to a standard dose of 2-2.5 mg/kg body weight for the induction of general anesthesia within 1-2 min after injection and arousal after 5-10 minutes. The fast-acting narcotic effect of propofol prevents the self-injection of more than one ampoule at one time." Thus, 200 mg would almost certainly not result in death due to an overdose, especially not in a healthy adult patient like Jackson even if he was thin. The only way this may have presented a problem is if the benzodiazepines in Jackson's system were in fact sedating him and causing some respiratory depression. This would also mean Jackson was in fact unconscious. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Jackson could not have administered the entire ampoule himself due to the small size of the syringes and subsequent loss of consciousness after receiving 100 mg (10 mL), the maximum amount one syringe could hold assuming no lidocaine was added. Sedation can be achieved from doses of 100 mg and less. In fact, 25 mg and 50 mg are typical bolus doses for induction of sedation according to Lexicomp and can cause sedation, albeit for a matter of minutes, if subsequent sedation is not continued with propofol or another substance.
The only way 200 mg theoretically kills a typical adult is to give it too rapidly (and to subsequently not have anyone there to render aid)--this itself is a rare event as death from propofol is infrequent even from people who abuse many times a day for months or in some rare cases years. Death from propofol almost always initially suspects third-party involvement, too, until proven otherwise. Death from Propofol: Accident, Murder or Suicide? by Kirby, et al. states, "Whether suicide is possible with propofol has been debated. Some investigators historically said no, because the maximum that was thought to be injectable, before the individual lost consciousness and was incapable of injecting more, was one vial (200 mg). This amount is equivalent to a standard anesthetic induction dose of 2.5 mg/kg to a healthy 80 kg individual." Jackson's weight was determined to be 136 lbs or 62 kgs. That means a standard dose for approximately 10 minutes of unconsciousness would have been 125-155 mg, slightly less than the supposed 175 mg self-administered (200 mg minus the 25 mg Murray admits to giving). Such a dose should not have been an overdose in Jackson. As discussed previously it is also impossible for Jackson to have over-rapidly injected propofol himself, too, based on IV configuration. The syringe size also limited Jackson to what amount he could have self-injected if able to defy the IV configuration. That leaves only Murray either lying about the amount he gave Jackson or possibly over-rapidly injecting him with a large amount of the drug and then failing to render appropriate aid while present.
Healthy patients who receive propofol for short-term procedures (ex. cardioversion, dental procedures, etc.) do not have to be intubated though propofol is almost always used with a patient intubated and having their breathing supported. Jackson, a healthy patient, had received propofol legitimately in the recent past by Dr. David Adams for dental work (http://www.lvrj.com/news/55332672.html) and no had problems. Cardiopulmonary equipment, such as an Ambu-bag and an oxygen with oxygen or a ventilator is on standby as a precaution any time propofol is given. Death after excess propofol abuse further states, "Hypotension and apnea are relevant side effects...and are probably dependent on dose and speed of propofol administration. Apnea during anesthesia induction occurs more frequently with propofol than with other anesthetics. The apena duration is usually short but it can persist for up to 3 minutes." Three minutes of cessation of breathing does not typically result in death, nor is this length of apnea common even from 200 mg. Furthermore, if Jackson had had his breathing assisted during the period of apnea with something like an Ambu-bag and oxygen, then there is no reason he should not have recovered fully. Jackson would still be alive today.
What about the Arm?
TMZ's video states Jackson had a "huge amount" in his arm. This has never been stated before nor have I found it stated anywhere else for that matter. This could all be a misunderstanding by the staff at TMZ given they do not have sufficient medical knowledge. Could Murray have administered this into his arm because the IV catheter tubing was no longer viable or desirable or the amount was too small to give via tubing? Jackson was essentially immobile with the IV catheter in his leg--was the propofol, syringes and needles within arm's reach to self-inject in the arm? Which arm had more propofol as Jackson being right-handed he would not inject into his right arm? Was Jackson even capable of injecting himself in the first place as he was not a trained medical professional? Was there any evidence of injection of propofol into his arm such as skin-popping? If in fact he had a higher concentration of propofol in his arm, could this indicate Jackson had limited-to no-circulation in his body (he was deceased or almost deceased) and the last dose essentially stalled within the circulatory system where administered, meaning Jackson was unconscious and it was given by Murray with Jackson in a grave state? I simply do not know what to make of this comment. I think it is better left for experts to examine or disregard.
Preparing the Syringe:
Another aspect of this case that bars Jackson from self-administering is the time frame he had in which to do it. It would indeed take many minutes, not seconds, to draw up and administer this medication, especially drawing the entire contents out of the glass bottle which wages a war with the syringe--it is difficult to get the medication into the syringe as it tries to continuously return to the bottle, even when air is misplaced for the liquid. Unless trained in giving IV drugs or preparing them it is a time-consuming task to draw up any large amount of contents from a glass bottle. Lack of training and experience often results in some loss of the drug when the syringe is removed from the bottle, too. In other words, using a syringe to pull medication from a glass bottle has a tendency to "spray" the contents out either from the bottle and/or syringe. Unless someone is highly trained or they have a vented needle these issues are almost inevitable. It does not appear that Murray had any vented supplies. Lidocaine was also found in the syringe, too, and would have needed to have been withdrawn from its glass bottling as well. I do not believe Jackson, within two minutes or less, could draw out propofol and /or lidocaine from glass bottling after just arousing from being sedated, self-injecting, then being in such a severe state that when Murray came back that he was not able to be revived. To further hint that Jackson was able to prepare not one but two syringes containing propofol and lidocaine, self-inject against all likelihood, and then be in such a shape he was not revivable--all in less than two minutes--is impossible.
Other Fallacies:
The mentioning of 10:00 p.m. in the TMZ video is false. Jackson was at rehearsals well past midnight that night per many witnesses. Furthermore, it makes no sense that Jackson was able to sleep on Ativan and Versed the night before (June 23rd) then suddenly on June 24th-25th Ativan, Versed and Valium could not induce sleep or apparently even drowsiness (though again Murray said he was "keeping him sedated"). An examination of Table 3A is not consistent with abuse or addiction to benzodiazepines, either. There is also an issue with Murray administering parenteral (through the skin) benzodiazepines when he had readily-available oral Valium and Ativan he could have given Jackson to try to induce sleep. A man who is sedated cannot swallow tablets, however. If Jackson really wanted to sleep, why not simply grab or ask for these tablets and take them in excess and wash them down with the water or orange juice on the bedside table? Why did Murray not continue giving Jackson benzodiazepines until he was sedated? If Jackson was overdosed on benzodiazepines, Murray could have remedied this with the flumazenil he had available.
This video mentions a drip of propofol again. There was no propofol drip. There was no manual/electronic pump. If the tubing used to administer propofol was 13.5 cm that is not long enough to hold up a glass bottle for a gravity drip, either. Furthermore, you would need vented tubing (which has never been said to have been found) for fluid to actually flow from the bottle. There was likely no vented tubing available based on evidence found at the scene. Given the finding of syringes with propofol and lidocaine, this seems to be the method Murray used to administer propofol to Jackson--via bolus injections which would place Murray there witnessing Jackson's response to the medications.
No reports have ever said that Murray was giving propofol for 60 days (eight weeks). Some say six weeks, some say two weeks. Thus far only one receipt has been discussed in the California search warrant. A receipt from 05/12/2009 shows what was purchased by Murray himself through Applied Pharmacy Services in Las Vegas. Multiple bottles of propofol, two vials of midazolam, one vial of flumazenil and one container of lidocaine cream were purchased. This receipt does not completely correlate with what was said to have been found at the residence so where did the remaining supplies come from and when? How many bottles of propofol did Murray buy during his duration of "care" of Jackson? One must understand a 20 mL vial only gives approximately 10-15 minutes of sedation if given via bolus (syringe). A 1000 mg bottles would give approximately an 60-90 minutes of sedation if given via boluses. If Murray was using propofol regularly on Jackson, whether one week or six weeks, then he would have needed numerous bottles of propofol, not just 5 or so bottles, regardless of size. Further examining the California search warrant also seriously questions the doses Murray claims to have given Jackson the day he died. Many vials, including vials of propofol, midazolam, lidocaine and lorazepam were empty. Empty vials do not correlate with Murray's small amounts stated as being administered on 06/25/2009. Either Murray was a vial hoarder, he wasted the medications to stage repetitive use of the drugs or he is lying about how much he administered of various medications to Jackson. Hair samples from Jackson could clarify this discrepancy in better detail.
"Dr. Murray's Defense--Jackson Killed Himself"
Please read the following link: http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/05/Jackson-jackson-dr-conrad-murray-propofol-death-cause-iv-addict-overdose-heart-legal-defense/59/#c3365156
Synergism Denied:
First off, the likelihood of the administration of three benzodiazepines failing to sedate Jackson is slim if not impossible. However, if they were not sedating him as Murray claims then a synergistic effect would be null as propofol would not suddenly cause the benzodiazepines to sedate Jackson--they either would or would not sedate him and propofol would take an effect independently. Propofol decreases the clearance of midazolam by inhibiting CYP3A4: An in vivo and in vitro study by Hamaoka, et al. states that midazolam (Versed) may be cleared at a slower rate when given with propofol but propofol's clearance is not affected. Propofol inhibits midazolam from being metabolized from possible competition of CYP3A4. This mean that if the midazolam had in fact been sedating Jackson the effects would have been prolonged but propofol's duration of action would not be effected. But, Murray claims Jackson was not sedated. Thus, once the propofol wore off within minutes as it normally would then Jackson would have awoke again as the benzodiazepines are said to have had no initial effect. If Murray is lying and Jackson was sedated, whether fully or partially on midazolam, then the midazolam had a longer duration of action than one would expect (the half-life of midazolam is prolonged by approximately 61%).
Insinuating Jackson was out an hour on 25 mg of propofol in conjunction with non-sedating doses of Ativan and Versed (which also wears off fast) is impossible. Plus, this does not match with the story Murray told detectives that is contained in the search warrant. Murray said he gave 25 mg, observed Jackson for 10 minutes then left no more than two minutes to use the restroom. I do not believe 25 mg of propofol is capable of keeping someone out for 10 minutes. If not previously sedated, which Murray claims he was not, then he would have woke up while Murray was monitoring him, before he went to the restroom.
(Lack of) Addiction vs. (Unintentional) Abuse:
Addiction to propofol is something I hope to speak about heavily in the near future. For a short synopsis, please read this blog, "Was Jackson an addict?". Please understand, one statement that remains consistent across the board is Jackson wanted to use propofol "to sleep". He did not wish to use it for a "high" or euphoria as if this was the reason for use then it would have been used in short bursts and Jackson would not have desired to use it under a doctor's care for the duration of the night with the anticipation of simply waking up in the morning to start the day after getting a much desired snooze. I cannot deny that using propofol for sleep is a form of abuse. That makes Jackson's case unique in that he was not abusing it for reasons of arrogance. Insomnia and fatigue can be catastrophic and even fatal and there is no doubt Jackson did in fact suffer from insomnia for years. Abuse and addiction are not the same thing. Jackson's reported request for propofol is a form of abuse that a lay person could naturally assume as reasonable as Jackson, I promise you is not the first, not the last or the only person to ever ask for propofol for sleep because they were fatigued or unable to sleep. Jackson, as a lay person, did not understand this drug did not render him true sleep, that it put him at grave risk for infection and apnea nor did he understand how it was administered or used given when it was administered he was unconscious. It was the duty of medical professionals to deny him of his what he likely assumed to be a harmless request in which he could not seriously consider the possibility of fatal consequences.
Enjoying Liquid Fire?
For TMZ to insinuate that Jackson "liked the sensation of propofol being administer by IV, adding, "Jackson liked to push it."--they should be sued for libel. Though not everyone experiences a burn with propofol it seems likely Jackson did given IV lidocaine was used. Many describe the administration of propofol as the most painful experience of their life. Propofol is only given by IV (peripheral, PICC or central line, etc.) and saying he liked to push it, well, that is a difficult task considering those receiving propofol become unconscious many times within seconds of administration. If Jackson wanted to abuse the propofol himself or thought that what he was doing was in fact abuse he would not have had Conrad Murray there to administer it and monitor him. Jackson did not think he was abusing propofol, he thought a physician was treating his insomnia.
The Fallen Bottle:
Below are photos of the crime scene/bedroom for discussion about the bottle found under the night stand:
http://www.intmensorg.info/images/mjdb.jpg
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2573786/Pictures-of-Jacksons-death-mansion.html
This particular bottle of propofol was the only bottle found during the initial exam of the residence on 06/25/2009. It was found on the floor under a night stand in the bedroom (see Table 3A of the autopsy report also for this information). This is reported to be the bottle Jackson used to self-inject according to Murray.
Medical supplies were on the gold table/trolley/night stand seen in the photographs. He was lying on the left side of the bed if you are visualizing this from the foot of the bed. He was in the supine position. If Jackson was self-injecting he would have the bottle in his left hand and the syringe in his right hand as he was right-handed. He then likely would have used two hands on the syringe to draw out the medication from the bottle, likely suspending the bottle in the air with the syringe. This is most easily done with two hands even for a man with large hands. After withdrawal, he likely would have left the bottle in the bed, to his left, as the syringe should have stayed in his right hand. He would subsequently have pushed the syringe with his right or both hands. Under no circumstances does it make sense he would he have injected and then dropped the bottle to his right on the floor. He had to have been using his right hand to push in the contents of the syringe. The bottle could only drop under the table if it was in his right hand but this hand had to have been utilized to push the contents of the syringe. This essentially rips Murray’s notion that the empty bottle under the table was dropped by a self-injecting Jackson. Plus, was the bottle on the rug or hard floor? If it had been tossed and hit the hard floor would it not have shattered?
If a bottle of propofol was on the floor to begin with, which is possible, then Jackson could not have retrieved it with an IV catheter in his leg. Anyone could have placed the bottle under the night stand--including Murray. Whose fingerprints are on the bottle? Fingerprints would not necessarily implicate anyone but could rule out individuals--especially Jackson if his fingerprints are lacking and if he accomplished self-administration against all odds. I am sure he did not take the time to apply gloves if he could even reach them. If Jackson's fingerprints are lacking and Murray's present then that should answer the question of who used the bottle. Have fingerprints been lifted from the evidence? Would such occur for a involuntary manslaughter case?
The Broken Syringe:
One of the two syringes collected was a broken syringe discovered on 06/25/2009. This broken syringe contained propofol and lidocaine only. This syringe was apparently not hidden in a closet like the remaining supplies (including multiple empty bottles of propofol) listed on Table 3A as collected on 06/29/2009. Was this syringe found in the bed, on the floor, on the night stand, etc.? If it was used to self-inject it should have either been in the bed or attached to the tubing that was subsequently hidden. Did this syringe even contain a needle or was a needle found used to withdrawal propofol? Were fingerprints lifted off the syringe? When did this syringe break? Was it broken by means of the plunger (the part you push and pull) separate from the barrel (what holds the contents)? If this is true, then this syringe would not have been useable. Jackson could not have used a broken syringe to have either drawn up or injected propofol. He certainly could not have broken it after losing consciousness either.
What does the tubing say about dosing?
I previously questioned the doses Murray claims to have administered to Jackson due to numerous empty vials found. Murray claims to have given only 25 mg (2.5 mL) of propofol to Jackson. The tubing used to administer propofol was said to be 13.5 cm long (approximately 5 inches long). Could 2.5 mL travel through the tubing to reach Jackson? That seems unlikely unless Murray flushed the line. Supplies to flush the line were apparently lacking and he did not flush the tube before disconnecting it. The tubing contained 0.47 g of liquid containing propofol, lidocaine and flumazenil. If Jackson was given only 2.5 mL of propofol then it seems this would have to have been given directly through a vein, not the tubing as it would not have reached the blood stream. If the tubing was used it seems that Murray had to have given more than 2.5 mL. Regardless of which scenario this points to Murray again lying about how much propofol he gave Jackson that morning.
Clean Up Before They Come:
Murray’s lawyer maintains that Murray did not do a "clean up" before paramedics arrived. Really?
http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/22/conrad-murray-Jackson-jackson-propofol-cpr-drug-vials
http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/22/witness-dr-conrad-murry-hid-propofol-Jackson-jackson-death-police-closet
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/unsealed_search_warrants_revea.html
In the autopsy report, an empty glass vial of propofol, an empty glass vial of flumazenil, and the broken syringe with only propofol and flumazenil are mentioned being found on 06/25/2009. These items were not hidden.
Multiple bottles of propofol (some of which were used), another syringe containing flumazenil, propofol, and lidocaine as well as IV tubing also containing these three medications were found on 06/29/2009 in a closet (http://www.radaronline.com/photos/image/15324). Also found in a closet on 06/29/2009 were a blood pressure cuff and pulse-ox--two items that should have been at the bedside the entire time and caused no suspicion, whether giving propofol or not. These two items, if used, would have helped keep Jackson alive. These items were likely not used, for if they had been used Jackson not only would likely be alive but they would have alerted Murray of possible trouble and then later confirmed that Jackson was deceased. All the mentioned items above were indeed hidden, indicating a "clean up".
It has been stated that Alberto Alvarez was asked by Murray to remove the IV tubing that contained "a white liquid", that being propofol. Did paramedics take notice of the propofol bottle and/or flumazenil bottle later found by detectives on 06/25/2009? Were these left accidentally on purpose in an attempt to stage a scene? Possible alteration of the crime scene to make it look like a suicide is highly possible given Murray's defense. This, in turn, could indicate pre-mediated murder if enough forethought was given to stage the scene in such a manner. Murray's claim that he needed to go back to retrieve petty skin creams (and having Jackson taken to the hospital instead of being declared dead at the residence) also indicate he wanted to go back to either alter the scene further or remove some items from the scene. Why did Murray take the time to hide evidence while insisting Jackson was alive and implied he could be saved? Why would anyone who is responsible for keeping someone alive take the time to hide evidence rather than render or seek aid continuously? Why are Murray and his defense team lying about a "clean up" when one is clearly evident?
Has anyone asked Murray what he did with the syringe when he gave the supposed 25 mg? If Murray's syringe had been moved from where he had left it prior to his restroom break, it would have been apparent immediately to Murray because the propofol bottle, syringe, etc. would all have been moved and placed in such a matter supporting self-injection. Why not leave the area as-is if it were an accident done by the victim himself? Murray should have left everything in place as time was of the essence and Jackson's life, according to Murray, was hanging in the balance though reports do not support him being deceased. Why essentially tear down an scene that really is an accident?
All the aforementioned statements above raise the question of why did Murray tamper with the scene. If he genuinely did not know what happened in that room while he was out he should have left everything in exactly the same place as he found it and focused on saving Jackson which did not require the removal of items into closets and medical bags. There is no excuse for the delay in calling 911 or not having proper resuscitative equipment either as that is precisely why propofol is given in a hospital setting only. Murray should have informed paramedics of his suspicions, and been honest, instead of saying he had only given Ativan to Jackson. Murray has been anything but honest.
Conclusion:
There has also been some mention that a 100 mL (1000 mg) bottle was found in a closet with a large rip in it, indicating it was used for some sort of make-shift drip. I have debated whether or not this is true and lean towards it being false. If Murray did not have some form of vented tubing there would have been limited to no flow of liquid from the bottle as glass bottling must be vented to flow. If Murray by some chance had some vented supplies on hand and given it by gravity it would have killed Jackson. He apparently would have also had to have held the bottle attached to the 13.5 cm tubing which means he would have witnessed what was occurring to Jackson. If he did in fact use the 100 mL bottle that would also indicate he staged the scene with the 20 mL bottle left behind in the room.
Death after excessive propofol abuse states, "After a bolus injection, consciousness is lost in patients at propofol blood concentrations of 1.3-6.8 mcg/mL Consciousness was regained after 8-10 minutes at concentrations of 1-2.5 mcg/mL." The article further states that in their patient case (a male nurse who died from rapidly injecting multiple 200 mg doses over a period of at least 6 hours based on urine samples) likely died immediately after the final, rapid propofol injection due to his blood level being 5.3 mcg/mL--compared to 4.1and 2.6 mcg/mL in Jackson, respectively. Both these levels are consistent with Jackson not only being unconscious but would seem to indicate he, too, may have died shortly after injection. We also, however, still have to grapple with the information from the autopsy report that states multiple bottles of propofol were found empty. Keep in mind even though many bottles were empty, an enormous amount of propofol is needed to keep someone sedated for any length of time--200 mg (one 20 mL bottle) roughly gives 10 minutes of sedation. How many bottles did Murray buy while Jackson was under his care? How did Murray intend to keep this routine up or was he inducing sedation with propofol then using benzodiazepines to keep him sedated/asleep? How was Murray to receive propofol in London? Did he intend on giving propofol to Jackson in London? Was Jackson expected to live to see London?
Jackson's urinary propofol levels do not support him receiving propofol for any serious duration of the night on 06/25/2009 (less than 0.10 mcg/ml and 0.15 mcg/ml versus 5.4 mcg/mL in the male nurse who had been using the previous 6 hours before his death). How much did Murray really give Jackson that morning when Jackson should have been up and ready to begin his day? Murray being a medical professional and by admitting he had given propofol to Jackson before knew the possible consequences of giving this drug too rapidly and knew how much to give as well. He may have given bolus injections before on patients for cardioversions. He also knew it was not a legitimate regimen for insomnia, either, as it does not even induce true REM sleep and can be fatal if given without respiratory assistance. He knew how to do CPR, he knew Jackson was deceased at the house and he knows what really happened. So why are people like me and others having to try and piece this together when Murray knows the truth?
If Jackson could not have injected the contents and killed himself nor could he have completed this while Murray was out of the room then Murray's defense is null and void . Evidence certainly seems support this and likely if more evidence was known then this could likely be established without reasonable doubt. If that is then true that a much deeper analysis should be completed regarding Jackson's death as pre-mediated murder seems to be more likely than anything accidental.
Special thanks to "QuirkyDiana" for her contributions.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
This Is What I Get for Helping a Man--Setting the Record Straight
I find it pathetic I have to stoop so low as to sit here and take time to write something as asinine as this blog/article but I suppose I have to thanks to some individuals who cannot think outside of some sort of fanatical and/or narrow-minded box. I hold no grudge against those who are just confused by all the lies floating out there but have no remorse or sympathy for those who are simply mean and cruel individuals with nothing better to do than hurt, slander, libel and defame people under the guise of being a seeker of "justice" for Michael Jackson or any guise, for that matter. There is enough pain in the world from basic living that we really don't need anymore pain generated selfishly by people through their own free will.
During the past 12 months I have done a lot of research on Michael Jackson's death, mostly his death, anyway, because his death is a medical-related event and I have some medical knowledge and access to medical databases and medical professionals that can be pivotal into understanding how Michael died from a research-based standpoint. But, more importantly, I do research on Michael because I care about Michael and hurt deeply not just from his death but his life, too, from all the lies and pain he suffered for decades when there was no need for it. That is why I do not just focus on his death or science, I also write about the man as a human being as is evident in some of my blogs here such as "Have You Seen His Childhood?". I have published (for free, yes, "publish" in my vocabulary means "to be made public", not to be paid) many articles I have written (yes, I do write them myself) here on this blog you now are reading, again, for free, because I want to share my pieces in the hopes people, all people whether you like Michael or not, will better understand Michael and give truth a chance because it is a travesty for the public to believe such inaccurate things about him, about his life and mostly about his death as not one media outlet has in any form seemed to get anything right.
Some writings, however, I do not share though "inner-circles" may know about these writings as we all share things with friends or people we assume are "friends". There is a valid reason that only "inner-circles" know about these writings as I will explain later in some detail but not all as again, if something is to be known in an "inner circle" then not all details should be revealed as to why such is not public which puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage but I will try my best to work around it.
Some have decided to air their banal, albeit what was private, knowledge of one document connected to me. At times this document may be dubbed as a "book" in a jocular manner, but this misnomer is now being used in the attempts of making me out to possess some sort of "dirty laundry" or ulterior motives. I possess no "dirty laundry" other than what lies in my clothes hamper. For the record--I am not writing a book nor did I ever say such anywhere at anytime. I am actually working on putting a book together, though, which the plan can be viewed here: http://www.someoneputyourhandout.com/Project_Information.html. Everything else I write and will continue to write are articles or documents only and will be published right here on this blog in time. Some people are trying to use this false and weak notion of me "writing a book" against me though a) they have never laid eyes on what they base this claim on even though it is actually a completed, private work, b) have no clue as to what it even contains and c) are attempting to mislead people into thinking something I have written or am writing may be negative or what not when I have yet to ever, in public or private, say anything negative about Michael Jackson.
I would hope that I would find something better to do with my time than to write and do research that is contained here on my one and only blog (for free, again), as many times they are lengthy and highly time-consuming and even exhausting pieces. If I did not feel so compelled to help Michael I would simply call it a day from the behavior I have seen from the likes of some people but I must remember these people are NOT an accurate reflection of Michael and he does not deserve to be "abandoned" because a few individuals attack others in his name.
Not everything I write is public, either, because Michael Jackson's death is an ongoing investigation--please keep that in mind though not much investigating seems to be going on, to be honest, and this has caused me to rethink my position of what can I do to help Michael if it seems like nothing is being done? This coupled with so many lies out there has just about driven me insane because I sit here knowing very few know what I do on the subject of medicine but am not sure what I should do about it. In some ways, seeking justice in his death through the courts is already compromised from the release of information like the autopsy report, the search warrants, the details of Conrad Murray's defense that Jackson killed himself (which is one of the grossest excuses I have ever heard in my life that can be proven completely false). People close to Michael who know inside information have come out and spoken, some of which reveal positive information and some of which reveal negative, false and misleading information. All of those things mentioned above in many ways have damned justice for Michael when it comes to seeing anyone punished for his homicide. That does not mean people should not someday know the truth as to what happened to him with a thorough understanding of how something like this could happen. That is where I come in and fight first and foremost--for people to understand much of what they are hearing is not true, not because I say so but because science, research, and facts says so. I try my best to fix the errors I hear or read now but this is causing me so much grief and hatred in the process. I really do not get the basis behind it, either.
For the record, I did not know Michael Jackson. I know nothing beyond what I can find on the internet or in books or databases that technically a lay person could use if they knew where to find access. I do not relate inside information to to public, ever, as I have none and may never have any. I can only draw conclusions from what I hear or usually read and then write about them in a factual manner as nothing bugs me more than seeing something touted as accurate when it is not. What can I say, I like to "fix" things.
Furthermore, some things I write should not be revealed to the public as they are very detail-oriented and scientific and the public, by far, would not understand it or find it useful. It would be like someone who speaks only English trying to interpret Mandarin. Only medical professionals would be able to understand some of the things I write, so why "publish" (make public, not sell) something that would only lead to more confusion? If I mention something like the "CYP2D6 system", only a medical professional will understand what I am talking about, including a medical professional like Conrad Murray who stands at the center of Michael's death.
I sit here though angry because I see books being sold on Amazon that are filled with "medical research" when in fact it is research that has been used to concoct lies. I have written a blog about one such case here: http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-sudden-death-of-michael.html It makes me sick to see something like this available to the public when not only is it blatantly wrong but it claiming to be based off "research" thus it is highly misleading, too. I sit here wanting justice for Michael and understanding for the public but when I try to counteract something like on my measly blog or make mention of me publicly trying to attack things like this I am not only getting attacked by people who believe these lies but by people who claim to want justice for Michael! Those who attack me and berate me--I guess you would rather have books out there that claim Michael was being treated for alcohol withdrawal when he did not even have any form of alcohol-related disease or ethanol in his system when he died.
Why would people try to discredit me when RIGHT HERE lies ALL of my public work besides commentary left randomly here or there on private or public forums? I will tell you this much--I am a firm believer in if you do not have something "nice" or in this case beneficial to say, then do not say it at all. Be it jealousy, intimidation, psychosis, hell, I don't know--people are just mean as Michael's life is a perfect example of such cruelty and people will go out of their way to hurt others. I never imagined I would learn how mean and cruel people can be by just trying to HELP A MAN who stood for love and and humanity.
Referring back to the claim or notion that I want to "make money" off Jackson, well, I actually use my own money and time to maintain a web site domain name and access to a web-building tool that promotes truth and justice for Michael Jackson, in a very generic form. (http://www.someoneputyourhandout.com). I would like to see someone try to smear with me this fact. I will be waiting patiently.
I ask anyone who reads this blog to keep an open mind and go out and look for yourself at what is really going out there in the world of "justice for Michael" be it on Facebook or Twitter, TMZ or the Sun. You do not have to go far to look and see that there are wolves with half-assed sheep's clothing on that will use you then wring you dry if they see a potential use in what you may have to say. Do not take my word for it as I do not want people thinking I am biased. Go look yourself and ask around--the proof is out there. I hope after this little bit I had to say you will see that my intentions are pure but in reality I cannot prove it. You just have to make that judgment upon yourself. I hope you make the right call.
During the past 12 months I have done a lot of research on Michael Jackson's death, mostly his death, anyway, because his death is a medical-related event and I have some medical knowledge and access to medical databases and medical professionals that can be pivotal into understanding how Michael died from a research-based standpoint. But, more importantly, I do research on Michael because I care about Michael and hurt deeply not just from his death but his life, too, from all the lies and pain he suffered for decades when there was no need for it. That is why I do not just focus on his death or science, I also write about the man as a human being as is evident in some of my blogs here such as "Have You Seen His Childhood?". I have published (for free, yes, "publish" in my vocabulary means "to be made public", not to be paid) many articles I have written (yes, I do write them myself) here on this blog you now are reading, again, for free, because I want to share my pieces in the hopes people, all people whether you like Michael or not, will better understand Michael and give truth a chance because it is a travesty for the public to believe such inaccurate things about him, about his life and mostly about his death as not one media outlet has in any form seemed to get anything right.
Some writings, however, I do not share though "inner-circles" may know about these writings as we all share things with friends or people we assume are "friends". There is a valid reason that only "inner-circles" know about these writings as I will explain later in some detail but not all as again, if something is to be known in an "inner circle" then not all details should be revealed as to why such is not public which puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage but I will try my best to work around it.
Some have decided to air their banal, albeit what was private, knowledge of one document connected to me. At times this document may be dubbed as a "book" in a jocular manner, but this misnomer is now being used in the attempts of making me out to possess some sort of "dirty laundry" or ulterior motives. I possess no "dirty laundry" other than what lies in my clothes hamper. For the record--I am not writing a book nor did I ever say such anywhere at anytime. I am actually working on putting a book together, though, which the plan can be viewed here: http://www.someoneputyourhandout.com/Project_Information.html. Everything else I write and will continue to write are articles or documents only and will be published right here on this blog in time. Some people are trying to use this false and weak notion of me "writing a book" against me though a) they have never laid eyes on what they base this claim on even though it is actually a completed, private work, b) have no clue as to what it even contains and c) are attempting to mislead people into thinking something I have written or am writing may be negative or what not when I have yet to ever, in public or private, say anything negative about Michael Jackson.
I would hope that I would find something better to do with my time than to write and do research that is contained here on my one and only blog (for free, again), as many times they are lengthy and highly time-consuming and even exhausting pieces. If I did not feel so compelled to help Michael I would simply call it a day from the behavior I have seen from the likes of some people but I must remember these people are NOT an accurate reflection of Michael and he does not deserve to be "abandoned" because a few individuals attack others in his name.
Not everything I write is public, either, because Michael Jackson's death is an ongoing investigation--please keep that in mind though not much investigating seems to be going on, to be honest, and this has caused me to rethink my position of what can I do to help Michael if it seems like nothing is being done? This coupled with so many lies out there has just about driven me insane because I sit here knowing very few know what I do on the subject of medicine but am not sure what I should do about it. In some ways, seeking justice in his death through the courts is already compromised from the release of information like the autopsy report, the search warrants, the details of Conrad Murray's defense that Jackson killed himself (which is one of the grossest excuses I have ever heard in my life that can be proven completely false). People close to Michael who know inside information have come out and spoken, some of which reveal positive information and some of which reveal negative, false and misleading information. All of those things mentioned above in many ways have damned justice for Michael when it comes to seeing anyone punished for his homicide. That does not mean people should not someday know the truth as to what happened to him with a thorough understanding of how something like this could happen. That is where I come in and fight first and foremost--for people to understand much of what they are hearing is not true, not because I say so but because science, research, and facts says so. I try my best to fix the errors I hear or read now but this is causing me so much grief and hatred in the process. I really do not get the basis behind it, either.
For the record, I did not know Michael Jackson. I know nothing beyond what I can find on the internet or in books or databases that technically a lay person could use if they knew where to find access. I do not relate inside information to to public, ever, as I have none and may never have any. I can only draw conclusions from what I hear or usually read and then write about them in a factual manner as nothing bugs me more than seeing something touted as accurate when it is not. What can I say, I like to "fix" things.
Furthermore, some things I write should not be revealed to the public as they are very detail-oriented and scientific and the public, by far, would not understand it or find it useful. It would be like someone who speaks only English trying to interpret Mandarin. Only medical professionals would be able to understand some of the things I write, so why "publish" (make public, not sell) something that would only lead to more confusion? If I mention something like the "CYP2D6 system", only a medical professional will understand what I am talking about, including a medical professional like Conrad Murray who stands at the center of Michael's death.
I sit here though angry because I see books being sold on Amazon that are filled with "medical research" when in fact it is research that has been used to concoct lies. I have written a blog about one such case here: http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-sudden-death-of-michael.html It makes me sick to see something like this available to the public when not only is it blatantly wrong but it claiming to be based off "research" thus it is highly misleading, too. I sit here wanting justice for Michael and understanding for the public but when I try to counteract something like on my measly blog or make mention of me publicly trying to attack things like this I am not only getting attacked by people who believe these lies but by people who claim to want justice for Michael! Those who attack me and berate me--I guess you would rather have books out there that claim Michael was being treated for alcohol withdrawal when he did not even have any form of alcohol-related disease or ethanol in his system when he died.
Why would people try to discredit me when RIGHT HERE lies ALL of my public work besides commentary left randomly here or there on private or public forums? I will tell you this much--I am a firm believer in if you do not have something "nice" or in this case beneficial to say, then do not say it at all. Be it jealousy, intimidation, psychosis, hell, I don't know--people are just mean as Michael's life is a perfect example of such cruelty and people will go out of their way to hurt others. I never imagined I would learn how mean and cruel people can be by just trying to HELP A MAN who stood for love and and humanity.
Referring back to the claim or notion that I want to "make money" off Jackson, well, I actually use my own money and time to maintain a web site domain name and access to a web-building tool that promotes truth and justice for Michael Jackson, in a very generic form. (http://www.someoneputyourhandout.com). I would like to see someone try to smear with me this fact. I will be waiting patiently.
I ask anyone who reads this blog to keep an open mind and go out and look for yourself at what is really going out there in the world of "justice for Michael" be it on Facebook or Twitter, TMZ or the Sun. You do not have to go far to look and see that there are wolves with half-assed sheep's clothing on that will use you then wring you dry if they see a potential use in what you may have to say. Do not take my word for it as I do not want people thinking I am biased. Go look yourself and ask around--the proof is out there. I hope after this little bit I had to say you will see that my intentions are pure but in reality I cannot prove it. You just have to make that judgment upon yourself. I hope you make the right call.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Michael Jackson vs. Prince Nelson
"After attending a show by his old friend and rival Prince at the Palms hotel with Will (Will.I.Am), MJ invited him to have breakfast at his house. "We've always been compared to each other, but we are so different," Michael once said of the Purple One, who had made a point of showing off for Will and Jackson, jamming in front of them with his bass guitar. "He was always viewed as the songwriter and I was always the entertainer. But they've never really l acknowledged that I write. I wrote "Billie Jean", "Beat It", "Man in the Mirror". "We Are the World"...big songs. I have so much love for Prince. But why don't they look at me the same way?
--from Vibe Magazine, July 2010
(Side Note: Michael did not write "Man in the Mirror"--Siedah Garrett did specifically for him)
Once in a century do musical greats like Prince (Nelson) and Michael Jackson come about to essentially "own" a decade. Strange, too, that both were born in 1958, both born in the Midwest, both African-American, both have some of the same idols (both own much of their artistry to another great, James Brown), both came from regular families and both were born with amazing talent evident at an early age with a correlating drive for success that included a vocabulary that did not possess the words "no" or "impossible" as an answer for anything related to their talents. There are other similarities, too, but I think everyone gets the point.
However, many people for whatever reasons compare Michael and Prince as musicians. This is a fatal flaw. Aspects of their artistry make these men nearly polar opposites, in my belief. Both are usually lumped into the same genre though both have the tendency to cross genres, be it Pop, R&B, etc. But, beyond that fact, like Michael said from the quote from Vibe magazine and me knowing both of their music and careers well, I think they have basically nothing in common artistically and are not even in the same realms of genius. Both are geniuses, geniuses in their own respect, but it is different. To me, it is like comparing an abstract painter to a realist painter--both are artists, both paint, both may use oil paints but their approach is different and should not be held in the same light.
Both men are dubbed as perfectionists even though early in their careers Prince put out about an album a year compared to Michael's an album once every 4 or so years. Michael was always mainstream and heavily commercialized (which in some ways likely hurt him by clouding his artistry). Prince enjoyed many years as an "underground" artist. Both have a large amount of unreleased music, however Michael's unreleased music has kept itself well-hidden for the most part (for now). Prince's collection of bootlegs, videos and soundboard collections are a part of what makes him so incredible and in some ways respected even by those who do not like his music. You know someone is a hard-core fan and in it for the music when they can name songs upon songs of Prince's that have never found waves on the radio or their names on the cover of album sleeves. Prince's underground music collection is so vast it almost requires another language to explain it to others. I could delve further and also say that Michael's songs were a bit more "family-friendly" and Prince's work, at least early work, is highly explicit and at times X-rated. I have personally always found Michael's lyrics very straight-forward with a few exceptions--Prince's lyrics many times make sense to no one and may not even make sense to him. Prince fans are still guessing at who "Cynthia" is in "Starfish and Coffee" and maybe it is just me but it seems odd that in "Let's Go Crazy" Satan is referred to as the "elevator" and God as "going crazy". Okay Prince, I will take your word on that and admire your creativity. Mind you, this is a man who has said songs come to him while brushing his teeth so maybe he uses some funky toothpaste, perhaps? I want some!
Something very fundamental that separates these men is Prince's instrumental talents and Michael's lack thereof. I am not saying Michael did not or was not capable of playing instruments but he never did so while performing and I would think he would be considered a novice at any instrument he did play. Prince plays just about any instrument so long as it is not a horn (though he supposedly played the saxophone in junior high and does give direction to horn players on his albums). Some may disagree with me but I truly believe Prince has to be one of the top 5 guitarists to ever live--take it or leave it. His chord structures are amazing and the man plays a guitar as easily as he breathes--just watch him live and you will see what I mean. Prince's guitar skills allow him to methodically tune his guitars away from the classic E-A-D-G-B-E structure into tunes even professionals continue to guess at today. Keep in mind, this is a man who is essentially self-taught, too. I had the honor of being included in a discussion with Prince years ago and he mentioned practicing his guitar while in high school--he was happy his teachers allowed him to do so. (I remember him saying he was bad at math, too, but I have a hard time believing that to be honest.)
Many feel Michael's sole instrument was his body--his body through the instrument of dance especially. True, many say Michael is one of the best if not the best dancer to live. No one should deny his dancing as true an art form as playing the guitar or piano--all forms mentioned are that of artistic expression. However, I think this aspect of Michael's artistic talent, coupled with his love of magic, fantasy and pure showmanship (he did admire P.T. Barnum the circus magnate) hurt his career and further dealt him a lack of respect at being dubbed an artist or songwriter like Prince or Stevie Wonder. At his core, Michael was a showman like Jackie Wilson whose power and delivery was from his vocals and just his sheer presence and was gloried by his movement and ownership of the perfect body for dance, much like Michael Phelps is said to have the perfect body "engineered" for swimming.
It makes sense that Michael would go for making his shows more than just a show--he saw performers like Jackie Wilson perform since he was a child. Both Michael and Prince idolized James Brown and saw him perform live (Prince has said he got to dance on stage at a James Brown concert as a young child while Michael watched him from the side of the stage before performing himself). I have had the honor of seeing Prince perform live many times and now that I think about it, Prince is not too far off from being some sort of incarnation of James Brown, especially as he has gotten older.
But back to Michael and his dancing, we as a public, should not have expected Michael to be able to dance as he did when he was 20 years old forever and ever. Maybe some of us did not, people who appreciate real art do not hold unreal expectations. However, some fans seemed to never accept the fact that Michael was indeed human and like all of us had to grow up and he had to grow older, too. Some were angry that he even grew up to become a man and could not forever be "Little Michael". Come on people, get real. Maybe even Michael tried to deny the fact of physical aging himself as I figure he did (Peter Pan ring a bell?). Michael needed to shift from that aspect of his talent, the dancing, but what did he have to shift to? His vocal talent is superb, no doubt. I see a lot of people claiming he lip-synced. Well, yes in some concerts he did--but to those people who say that, have you ever tried to dance and sing at the same time? Try, see what happens and let me know. It does not take much to listen to Michael sing as a child or sing acapella and see the man possessed perfect pitch. But, his need to have put on such a show that he had to compromise his vocals for movement and dance is actually an example of his own talents being buried by other aspects of his art and creativity. He put so much emphasis on dance and movement and spectacle and just SHOW that he forgot what got him on top--his vocals and charisma. Anyone who enjoys music, especially Michael's, should have been happy and considered ourselves blessed to just be in the same room with his man and hear him sing anything his heart desired while he sat on a sofa with his feet perched on a coffee table. As Michael got older I wish he has shifted away from the pyrotechnics, the flying around on stage, even the "ups on the toes" and reverted more to focusing on vocals, new music and other creative outlets such as film. Prince has certainly done this in some ways--you will not see Prince doing the splits anymore or sticking a basketball court on stage and we should all be okay with that (though I would LOVE to play him in a game of horse sometime).
There is no doubt that Michael had a firm foundation of rhythm and melody. This may sound odd but I actually enjoyed hearing the "Dangerous" deposition tapes (available on YouTube) because I actually learned a lot about Michael and his method of creating music. One thing I never forget from these tapes is his discussion about the Moog synthesizer. Many times with Prince's music I think of the Linn drum machine, conversely. These men know music and know what makes good music.
Michael's foundation of rhythm is firmly heard in songs like "Billie Jean" and you can hear his construction of melody in "Beat It" from the "This Is It" soundtrack. If you listen to "Stranger in Moscow" you can visually picture Michael beat-boxing the rhythm. The man could beat-box and this was his method of getting the music "out". Michael's beat-boxing reminds me a lot someone that he and I both completely love and admire--Charlie Chaplin. Many do not know that Charlie was an accomplished musician. His most famous song is likely "Smile". Charlie played the violin and cello by actually restringing them and playing them left-handed, no less. I do not know how good Charlie was, but he at least apparently was able to place the bow on the strings (he actually said that Albert Einstein played the violin and frankly, he um, sucked). Anyway, Charlie wrote and composed many classical compositions and even had a company in his early years called "Charlie Chaplin Music Publishing Company".
http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/charlie-chaplin_music-company.htm
To the point, Charlie, being unable to skillfully play the piano or any instrument in a way to get the music "out" had to hum songs from his head to composers who then helped him construct his compositions. Sometimes it took hours and days to finally get one song "right". Some pianists would just quit, but some toughed it out, including Eric James who wrote a book about working with Charlie. My point is, even though Charlie did not play an instrument well enough to be considered "accomplished" he is still considered in the art world to be a spectacular musician. The same principle should apply to Michael even if he, too, was not an accomplished instrumentalist. He did write many of his own songs lyrically and did construct the melody and rhythm to many of them, too. In fact, Michael is included in the Songwriters' Hall of Fame:
http://songwritershalloffame.org/index.php/songs/detailed/C116/P0/
Shockingly enough, Prince is not a member. A protest may need to occur if this is not some type of error.
Even though Michael is in the Songwriter's Hall of Fame (and rightfully so) Michael was right when he said many do not look at him as a songwriter or even musician as I have pointed out before. People lump him into the likes of many of the "singers" today that are just up there flashing skin while be it yelling, auto-tuning, etc.--these people are merely puppets of a dying music industry that really ought to go back to its roots and seek out talent rather than commercially appealing actors and actresses. I admit that at a time I myself was not aware of Michael's artistry though I know it very well now as anyone who loves music should be aware and at least acknowledge Michael's talent whether they like his music or not. While Michael may be hailed as a performer he does not get much of the musical genius he deserves by those who are not fans and something should be done about this. He is admired and idolized by his fans but those who are not fans typically dismiss him as a musician or even an artist and this is wrong. Michael's role in the development of his music, his choreography, how you viewed him on stage, what you viewed in his "short films" aka music videos--that was all him or a good part of him. I remember Janet saying much of her guidance came from Michael, be it music or acting--he was the consummate artist from a young age.
It is sad, I sit here thinking that one of Michael's likely most precious hidden talents lay behind the camera, not in front of it or an audience. He knew what people wanted (more feet when James Brown danced), he knew what the audience would prefer to see (he spoke about how he used 6 cameras and chose what he wanted people to view), he knew how to act, maybe not in a movie so much as on stage (see his dramatic delivery of "You Were There" to Sammy Davis Jr. available on YouTube). I think Michael could have been one hell of a Broadway performer, too. But, more than anything I believe Michael had the potential to be known as one of the most superb directors (and writers) of our time (like Charlie) had he not gotten so entangled with drama from outside sources that created the beginning of the downfall of his career. I also believe these malicious and almost always baseless attacks are perhaps the most pivotal reason his artistry is either not respected or not known by many across the globe. It is my hope that someday people will know the truth about Michael, his talent and most of all his life.
--from Vibe Magazine, July 2010
(Side Note: Michael did not write "Man in the Mirror"--Siedah Garrett did specifically for him)
Once in a century do musical greats like Prince (Nelson) and Michael Jackson come about to essentially "own" a decade. Strange, too, that both were born in 1958, both born in the Midwest, both African-American, both have some of the same idols (both own much of their artistry to another great, James Brown), both came from regular families and both were born with amazing talent evident at an early age with a correlating drive for success that included a vocabulary that did not possess the words "no" or "impossible" as an answer for anything related to their talents. There are other similarities, too, but I think everyone gets the point.
However, many people for whatever reasons compare Michael and Prince as musicians. This is a fatal flaw. Aspects of their artistry make these men nearly polar opposites, in my belief. Both are usually lumped into the same genre though both have the tendency to cross genres, be it Pop, R&B, etc. But, beyond that fact, like Michael said from the quote from Vibe magazine and me knowing both of their music and careers well, I think they have basically nothing in common artistically and are not even in the same realms of genius. Both are geniuses, geniuses in their own respect, but it is different. To me, it is like comparing an abstract painter to a realist painter--both are artists, both paint, both may use oil paints but their approach is different and should not be held in the same light.
Both men are dubbed as perfectionists even though early in their careers Prince put out about an album a year compared to Michael's an album once every 4 or so years. Michael was always mainstream and heavily commercialized (which in some ways likely hurt him by clouding his artistry). Prince enjoyed many years as an "underground" artist. Both have a large amount of unreleased music, however Michael's unreleased music has kept itself well-hidden for the most part (for now). Prince's collection of bootlegs, videos and soundboard collections are a part of what makes him so incredible and in some ways respected even by those who do not like his music. You know someone is a hard-core fan and in it for the music when they can name songs upon songs of Prince's that have never found waves on the radio or their names on the cover of album sleeves. Prince's underground music collection is so vast it almost requires another language to explain it to others. I could delve further and also say that Michael's songs were a bit more "family-friendly" and Prince's work, at least early work, is highly explicit and at times X-rated. I have personally always found Michael's lyrics very straight-forward with a few exceptions--Prince's lyrics many times make sense to no one and may not even make sense to him. Prince fans are still guessing at who "Cynthia" is in "Starfish and Coffee" and maybe it is just me but it seems odd that in "Let's Go Crazy" Satan is referred to as the "elevator" and God as "going crazy". Okay Prince, I will take your word on that and admire your creativity. Mind you, this is a man who has said songs come to him while brushing his teeth so maybe he uses some funky toothpaste, perhaps? I want some!
Something very fundamental that separates these men is Prince's instrumental talents and Michael's lack thereof. I am not saying Michael did not or was not capable of playing instruments but he never did so while performing and I would think he would be considered a novice at any instrument he did play. Prince plays just about any instrument so long as it is not a horn (though he supposedly played the saxophone in junior high and does give direction to horn players on his albums). Some may disagree with me but I truly believe Prince has to be one of the top 5 guitarists to ever live--take it or leave it. His chord structures are amazing and the man plays a guitar as easily as he breathes--just watch him live and you will see what I mean. Prince's guitar skills allow him to methodically tune his guitars away from the classic E-A-D-G-B-E structure into tunes even professionals continue to guess at today. Keep in mind, this is a man who is essentially self-taught, too. I had the honor of being included in a discussion with Prince years ago and he mentioned practicing his guitar while in high school--he was happy his teachers allowed him to do so. (I remember him saying he was bad at math, too, but I have a hard time believing that to be honest.)
Many feel Michael's sole instrument was his body--his body through the instrument of dance especially. True, many say Michael is one of the best if not the best dancer to live. No one should deny his dancing as true an art form as playing the guitar or piano--all forms mentioned are that of artistic expression. However, I think this aspect of Michael's artistic talent, coupled with his love of magic, fantasy and pure showmanship (he did admire P.T. Barnum the circus magnate) hurt his career and further dealt him a lack of respect at being dubbed an artist or songwriter like Prince or Stevie Wonder. At his core, Michael was a showman like Jackie Wilson whose power and delivery was from his vocals and just his sheer presence and was gloried by his movement and ownership of the perfect body for dance, much like Michael Phelps is said to have the perfect body "engineered" for swimming.
It makes sense that Michael would go for making his shows more than just a show--he saw performers like Jackie Wilson perform since he was a child. Both Michael and Prince idolized James Brown and saw him perform live (Prince has said he got to dance on stage at a James Brown concert as a young child while Michael watched him from the side of the stage before performing himself). I have had the honor of seeing Prince perform live many times and now that I think about it, Prince is not too far off from being some sort of incarnation of James Brown, especially as he has gotten older.
But back to Michael and his dancing, we as a public, should not have expected Michael to be able to dance as he did when he was 20 years old forever and ever. Maybe some of us did not, people who appreciate real art do not hold unreal expectations. However, some fans seemed to never accept the fact that Michael was indeed human and like all of us had to grow up and he had to grow older, too. Some were angry that he even grew up to become a man and could not forever be "Little Michael". Come on people, get real. Maybe even Michael tried to deny the fact of physical aging himself as I figure he did (Peter Pan ring a bell?). Michael needed to shift from that aspect of his talent, the dancing, but what did he have to shift to? His vocal talent is superb, no doubt. I see a lot of people claiming he lip-synced. Well, yes in some concerts he did--but to those people who say that, have you ever tried to dance and sing at the same time? Try, see what happens and let me know. It does not take much to listen to Michael sing as a child or sing acapella and see the man possessed perfect pitch. But, his need to have put on such a show that he had to compromise his vocals for movement and dance is actually an example of his own talents being buried by other aspects of his art and creativity. He put so much emphasis on dance and movement and spectacle and just SHOW that he forgot what got him on top--his vocals and charisma. Anyone who enjoys music, especially Michael's, should have been happy and considered ourselves blessed to just be in the same room with his man and hear him sing anything his heart desired while he sat on a sofa with his feet perched on a coffee table. As Michael got older I wish he has shifted away from the pyrotechnics, the flying around on stage, even the "ups on the toes" and reverted more to focusing on vocals, new music and other creative outlets such as film. Prince has certainly done this in some ways--you will not see Prince doing the splits anymore or sticking a basketball court on stage and we should all be okay with that (though I would LOVE to play him in a game of horse sometime).
There is no doubt that Michael had a firm foundation of rhythm and melody. This may sound odd but I actually enjoyed hearing the "Dangerous" deposition tapes (available on YouTube) because I actually learned a lot about Michael and his method of creating music. One thing I never forget from these tapes is his discussion about the Moog synthesizer. Many times with Prince's music I think of the Linn drum machine, conversely. These men know music and know what makes good music.
Michael's foundation of rhythm is firmly heard in songs like "Billie Jean" and you can hear his construction of melody in "Beat It" from the "This Is It" soundtrack. If you listen to "Stranger in Moscow" you can visually picture Michael beat-boxing the rhythm. The man could beat-box and this was his method of getting the music "out". Michael's beat-boxing reminds me a lot someone that he and I both completely love and admire--Charlie Chaplin. Many do not know that Charlie was an accomplished musician. His most famous song is likely "Smile". Charlie played the violin and cello by actually restringing them and playing them left-handed, no less. I do not know how good Charlie was, but he at least apparently was able to place the bow on the strings (he actually said that Albert Einstein played the violin and frankly, he um, sucked). Anyway, Charlie wrote and composed many classical compositions and even had a company in his early years called "Charlie Chaplin Music Publishing Company".
http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/charlie-chaplin_music-company.htm
To the point, Charlie, being unable to skillfully play the piano or any instrument in a way to get the music "out" had to hum songs from his head to composers who then helped him construct his compositions. Sometimes it took hours and days to finally get one song "right". Some pianists would just quit, but some toughed it out, including Eric James who wrote a book about working with Charlie. My point is, even though Charlie did not play an instrument well enough to be considered "accomplished" he is still considered in the art world to be a spectacular musician. The same principle should apply to Michael even if he, too, was not an accomplished instrumentalist. He did write many of his own songs lyrically and did construct the melody and rhythm to many of them, too. In fact, Michael is included in the Songwriters' Hall of Fame:
http://songwritershalloffame.org/index.php/songs/detailed/C116/P0/
Shockingly enough, Prince is not a member. A protest may need to occur if this is not some type of error.
Even though Michael is in the Songwriter's Hall of Fame (and rightfully so) Michael was right when he said many do not look at him as a songwriter or even musician as I have pointed out before. People lump him into the likes of many of the "singers" today that are just up there flashing skin while be it yelling, auto-tuning, etc.--these people are merely puppets of a dying music industry that really ought to go back to its roots and seek out talent rather than commercially appealing actors and actresses. I admit that at a time I myself was not aware of Michael's artistry though I know it very well now as anyone who loves music should be aware and at least acknowledge Michael's talent whether they like his music or not. While Michael may be hailed as a performer he does not get much of the musical genius he deserves by those who are not fans and something should be done about this. He is admired and idolized by his fans but those who are not fans typically dismiss him as a musician or even an artist and this is wrong. Michael's role in the development of his music, his choreography, how you viewed him on stage, what you viewed in his "short films" aka music videos--that was all him or a good part of him. I remember Janet saying much of her guidance came from Michael, be it music or acting--he was the consummate artist from a young age.
It is sad, I sit here thinking that one of Michael's likely most precious hidden talents lay behind the camera, not in front of it or an audience. He knew what people wanted (more feet when James Brown danced), he knew what the audience would prefer to see (he spoke about how he used 6 cameras and chose what he wanted people to view), he knew how to act, maybe not in a movie so much as on stage (see his dramatic delivery of "You Were There" to Sammy Davis Jr. available on YouTube). I think Michael could have been one hell of a Broadway performer, too. But, more than anything I believe Michael had the potential to be known as one of the most superb directors (and writers) of our time (like Charlie) had he not gotten so entangled with drama from outside sources that created the beginning of the downfall of his career. I also believe these malicious and almost always baseless attacks are perhaps the most pivotal reason his artistry is either not respected or not known by many across the globe. It is my hope that someday people will know the truth about Michael, his talent and most of all his life.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
My Opinion of the AEG Contract Signed by Michael Jackson
The contract is available here:
http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/AEG%20contract.pdf
My opinion (and I stress opinion) of the AEG "Agreement" with Michael:
First, the date appears to be marked out on the first page for some reason. A date should always be placed on a document, regardless of its possible significance, so hopefully that is in fact the date, otherwise, what a sham. I will consider that mark out the date, however and move on. This document is also referred to as an "Agreement" with very little detailed information provided about specifics which leaves a lot of room for interpretation and misunderstanding, especially on behalf of the non-authoring party, Michael Jackson Company, LLC and more specifically Michael, the lay man. For this document to be potentially worth millions of dollars and months (if not years) of business transactions, it seems to be very small, too small, in fact. It is merely 14 pages, not including certain exhibits (other documents). Also notice this "Agreement" begins with "Dear Dr. Tohme" which a) makes it appear to be a letter, not a contract (why not use a cover letter addressed to Dr. Tohme to introduce a legitimate contract?), b) is not addressed to Michael Jackson, the one with all at stake here (Michael goes on to sign it as the artist and representative for The Michael Jackson Company, LLC--Dr. Tohme does not sign the contract anywhere though through AEG Live's eyes he was the point of contact for the company) and c) it is highly unprofessional in appearance. Most professional letters would state "Dr. Tohme:", which Dr. Tohme has yet to prove he is in fact a legitimate doctor, actually. He apparently is not an attorney, either. Being that this "Agreement" had attention directed to Dr. Tohme, one would assume him as apparently the one who helped negotiate this "Agreement" between Michael and AEG Live, as well as the one who would have had knowledge about this contract and would, or should have relayed understanding to Michael regarding it, which likely should have been an attorney doing this along with a manager--not just someone who is reportedly a businessman with no previous business experience related to the music business known to exist.
Section 1: Definitions:
As far as I know, a copy of Exhibit A which should include what is meant by Terms, Shows, Territory, etc., which are key to interpreting this document is not public.
Section 3: Itinerary of Shows:
Verbatim from the "Agreement":
"Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) and Promoter (AEG Live) shall reasonably cooperate with each other in an effort to arrive at mutually approved itineraries for each leg of Shows during the Term; provided, however, it shall be unreasonable for Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) to withhold or qualify its approval of any itinerary or amended itinerary proposed by Promoter if the date range of such itinerary does not exceed ten (10) weeks, the frequency of Shows within such itinerary does not exceed one Show per day and 3.5 Shows per seven-day period, on average, and the locations of the proposed venues are in metropolitan areas. Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) hereby pre-approves up to thirty one (31) Shows, or such other greater number as agreed by Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) and Promoter(AEG Live), at the 02 Arena in London, England between July 26 and September 30, 2009. Subject to the foregoing, Promoter (AEG Live) and Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) shall mutually agree on the number of legs of Shows and the number of Shows in each leg during the Term, and Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) shall supply a first class performance of Artist (Michael) in accordance with this "Agreement" at all the Shows. Without limiting the generality of Promoters right to schedule Shows throughout the Term or Artistco’s (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC's) obligation to supply a first class performance of Artist (Michael) at all such Shows, in no event shall the number of Shows performed by Artist (Michael) in the first leg of the Tour be less than eighteen (18) Shows unless otherwise directed by Promoter. It shall be unreasonable for Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) to with hold its approval of adding Shows to any given leg of the Tour or adding legs of Shows to the Tour during the Term (so long as the number of Shows in any given leg do not exceed one per day and 3.5 per seven-day period, on average) if Promoter (AEG Live) demonstrates to Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) that such additional Shows and/or legs are necessary for Promoter (AEG Live) to recoup the Advances in accordance with the terms of this "Agreement". Prior to the commencement of any leg of the Tour, Promoter (AEG Live) shall provide Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) with financial models based on estimated Pool Expenses, Production Costs and Pool Revenue based on projections that assume Promoter shall sell tickets to ??? of the sellable capacity of the applicable venues. The parties shall attempt in good faith to agree upon the number of Shows that need to be scheduled for Promoter (AEG Live) to recoup all Advances in connection with such leg. As used here In, “leg” refers to a segment of Shows which are contiguous with each other in terms of time and geographic region. (e.g., North America,. the United Kingdom, Europe) and are not separated by more than three (3) weeks.
My interpretation of this above section of the "Agreement":
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live should attempt (but is not required) to agree to concert dates for each leg for the term. However, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC has no reason to either agree or disagree (effectively have no say either way) with any concert dates changed or proposed to be changed by AEG Live if the changes made or proposed are not longer than 10 weeks, do not exceed more than one show a day, include more than 3.5 shows a week and the locations are in big cities. Please understand the above sentence gives AEG Live the right to have changed/add tour dates so long the change was not more than 10 weeks, did not add two or more shows to one day, did not add more than 3.5 shows in a week and did not occurs in a rural area. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC pre-approved up to 31 shows (that does not mean 31 shows were deemed necessary per the "Agreement") and more could be added if agreed by The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live for the London O2 Arena between the dates of July 26th and September 30th, 2009. To me, this is like being pre-approved for a $1 million mortgage loan but you bought a house for $750,000 instead.
Please note: "This Is It" was scheduled to begin July 8th, was then pushed back to July 13th and the first leg was to conclude September 29th, 2009 (approximately an 11 week leg). Figuring in with the July 13th start date, that was to be a total of 27 shows for the first leg. Furthermore, there were 4 shows scheduled in one week, which is against the terms of this "Agreement": July 26th, July 28th, July 30th and August 1st which would is more than the 3.5 shows in one week. It has been stated by Frank DiLeo that before he replaced Dr. Tohme, the concerts were arranged in a format that was much more grueling than the dates that ultimately became the "This Is It" dates (4 or more shows a week).
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live were to come to an agreement on the number of legs and number of shows in each leg (however, remember that AEG Live had the right to change or propose changes so long as they were did not violate the four terms mentioned above (not longer than 10 weeks, etc.). Michael was to give a "first class performance" with each show. Without limiting AEG Live's right to schedule shows throughout the term (I assume the entire worldwide tour), and without interfering with Michael's obligation to give a "first class performance" at every show, in no event shall Michael have performed less than 18 shows in the first leg (he was scheduled for 27) unless AEG Live says there should or could be less done which could have made 10 shows theoretically possible, which is the amount Michael announced in the press conference to do in London, not for the duration of the term with AEG Live. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC had essentially no right to deny the addition of shows to legs of the tour during the term as long as there is not more than one show a day or 3.5 shows in 7 days ("on average", according to the "Agreement") if AEG Live proves to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC that more shows and/or legs are needed to for AEG Live to recoup their advanced costs for the shows. In other words, Michael was not allowed to disagree with the addition of shows if AEG Live found more shows necessary to cover their upfront costs for the tour. AEG Live and The Michael Jackson Company, LLC should attempt but is not required to agree upon the number of needed shows for AEG Live to recoup the advanced money for the shows. Thus, Michael had no genuine say in with this contract so long as AEG did not extended an itinerary over 10 weeks, add more than one show to a day, add more than 3.5 shows in one week or ask for a show in a non-metropolitan area. Michael was bound to oblige to AEG Live's tour schedule if they deemed it needed to gain back costs advanced to Michael. It is possible, then, for AEG to have agreed to 10 shows at the London O2 Arena. Michael did not say this was his final concerts but rather his final shows in London. Though 31 shows were pre-approved at the Arena that does not mean they were set in stone to be done, nor does it say the Artist but rather Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) agreed to this number of pre-approved shows. Was it Michael or Dr. Tohme who agreed upon that number since Dr. Tohme is the one who is referenced as the point of contact for The Michael Jackson Company, LLC.
Section 4: Artist's (Michael's) Compensation
4.1 Michael was to be compensation based on contingency means Michael was likely to be paid but it was not guaranteed. Michael was entitled to receive 90% of the (marked out--earnings?, profits? etc.?) on a fully cross-collateralized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-collateralization) basis, after expenses and revenue were tied together and reviewed. A portion (not all) of his likely-to-be-paid payment was to be paid at the conclusion of each leg (meaning his first portion of payment would have occurred sometime after September 29th, at the conclusion of the first leg of the tour). He was not to be paid after each show which has been customary for some artists. Within ten days of September 29th, AEG Live would have given The Michael Jackson Company, LLC a preliminary statement of the shows, including what money was spent and what was made (expenses and revenues). Within five days after that, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC would be paid some unknown equivalent amount after AEG Live recouped any monies towards the advanced monies given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC for the shows. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC would be paid some amount of the "Contingent Compensation", "if any" then. The "if any" clause is actually verbatim from the "Agreement". By no later than 60 days (2 months) after the last show of the term (not leg) AEG Live would provide Michael with a final settlement that was fully-cross collateralized (factoring in both expenses and revenue). If overpaid, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to return that overpaid amount to AEG Live. AEG Live was allowed to make up for any monies owed by The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. AEG Live was to give The Michael Jackson Company, LLC a list of revenues and expenses twice a month.
4.2 Most of this clause is marked out. However, 4.2.1 refers to Exhibit B (the inducement letter) and Exhibit C (the promissory note). These are not public, as far as I know. Michael 's belongings were not used to secure the promissory note but anything owned by his company was, meaning, if Michael or his company failed to meet the requirements of the inducement letter, then AEG Live would retain control and possession of The Michael Jackson Company, LLC's belongings, whatever those may be. Michael and his company were loaned money by AEG Live against The Michael Jackson Company, LLC's property. The loan was to be repaid based on the agreement above (the Contingent Compensation clause).
Section 5: Promoter's Responsibilities
From "time to time" AEG Live would provide The Michael Jackson Company, LLC with possible concerts dates for each leg of a worldwide tour. Not much else in this section is of significance.
Section 6: Artist Responsibilities
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC should respond to possible tour dates within 5 days (though it does not specify that an agreement was necessary, only that a response shall be made). Michael was to perform at least 80 minutes, "first class", with no shows going over 3.5 hours. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and Michael himself were to maximize revenue (Pool Revenue). The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to pay for management, agency and legal fees. Please note, there is an area marked out that covers the name of an entity who was an exception to this clause. Whomever this person or entity was, they were being paid by AEG Live and this was being included as a Production Cost. Otherwise, the Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to pay for all other fees related to management, agency, and legal costs.
Section 7: Ticketing Activities:
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was allotted 10 complimentary tickets per show. AEG Live was to control ticket sales and as allowed to use secondary outlets for ticket sales. Apparently they used the company Viagogo as an attempt to scalp tickets to the "This Is It "shows in an attempt to maximize gain, with AEG Live to receive 80% of the profits (this information about Viagogo is NOT in the "Agreement" but has been revealed by other sources that can be provided).
Section 8: Production of the Shows
Michael was to work closely with AEG Live concerning the "creative aspects of the design of the Show", through approved parameters and a budget that was agreed upon by both Michael and AEG Live, while also using third-party vendors for assistance with the shows. Furthermore, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to pay AEG Live a producer's fee, and AEG Live could deduct that fee amount from amounts to be paid to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC.
Section 11: Approvals
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live had the right, before any show, to pre-approve many items including a) "any itinerary changes including any and all decisions to add multiple dates". Perhaps some clarification should have been made by AEG regarding this clause as is highly vague but it appears to allow the addition of shows and if the terms in Section 3 apply, which they should, then Michael nor is company could deny additions of shows so long as they did not break the four fundamental rules that were stated above. Furthermore, neither The Michael Jackson Company, LLC (nor AEG Live though they did not have many stipulations against them) could essentially deny or delay approval of such changes when approval or consent is required. Remember, consent was required by Michael and the Michael Jackson Company, LLC especially concerning the recoup of advances paid to. Seems to imply that "no" was not an answer for Michael in most instances, in my opinion.
Section 12: Force Majeure
If a show is cancelled from a "greater force" (ex. earthquake) then neither The Michael Jackson Company, LLC nor AEG Live shall be liable. Other sections of this clause are marked out.
Section 13: Insurance
Michael had to agree and cooperate with AEG Live's purchasing life insurance, non-performance and cancellation insurance, etc. subject to confidentiality restrictions. Michael had to consent to physicals performed for these insurances. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC must stand behind Michael being free of any limiting health factors that would have kept him from giving a "first class performance" during the unknown term (is that Michael or Dr. Tohme who stood behind that statement; regardless Michael died a healthy man with some limitations perhaps from mild lung disease). The Michael Jackson Company, LLC had the option to get cancellation insurance if available and approved by AEG Live, to cover The Michael Jackson Company, LLC profits and productions costs that would also, at minimum, equal or be more than any losses from the advances given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC by AEG Live, with AEG Live to be named as the one paid for losses. The insurance policy would by no means alleviate The Michael Jackson Company, LLC of its obligations to pay back the advances from AEG Live to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. Whatever AEG Live had given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC had to be paid back--period--which is understandable. If AEG Live was to recoup the advances given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC, then the rest of it should go to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. If The Michael Jackson Company, LLC bought insurance to cover losses, the cost would become a Production cost and would be an expense that again relied on the "Contingent Compensation"--Michael's income for the tour. AEG Live, without permission, could obtain cancellation insurance to cover losses (Pool Expenses). The cost of that insurance itself would be a "Pooled Expense" cost, too. Apparently that would mean the cancellation insurance would be an expense incurred upon The Michael Jackson Company, LLC that again would come out of his possible income from AEG Live for the shows. Question: Did The Michael Jackson Company, LLC, acquire such insurance? All focus has been on the one insurance policy taken out by AEG through Lloyd's of London.
Section 14: Termination
Both The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live could terminate this specific "Agreement" if one or the other failed to meet obligations. Death is not a curable event (nor is it mentioned in this "Agreement"). This clause ends by stating Michael and his company are to return advances even if this "Agreement" is terminated.
Section 16: Miscellaneous
16.1 This "Agreement" and the exhibits included (which are not public to the best of my knowledge) are meant to be a final document. Anything said previously, whether a negotiation, statement, representation or agreement is to be part of this "Agreement", but is to be considered inferior to this final document. However, neither AEG Live or The Michael Jackson Company, LLC is to have relied on any other information, orally communicated or not, that is not included in this "Agreement". Those two statements seem to be rather contradictory and vague. The "Agreement" is not to be changed unless done so in writing and signed by the party (either Michael, his company or AEG Live). Obviously some changes were made as the tour did not begin on July 26th as was the original date, as well as other dates. I seriously doubt Michael came up with the 10 show-figure all on his own to which he announced during the press conference, either. Also noticed that 50 shows were not named, either. The only number mentioned was 31 shows and those were pre-approved, not set.
16.3 To keep Michael and his company bound to perform the requirements in the contract, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC granted AEG Live the right to possible full-ownership (including rights, title, and interest) to some property or properties marked out on this "Agreement".
I do not have a background with law and I am not familiar with other written tour contracts, but I would like to know if it is a bit strange to ask for collateral for a tour. If AEG had such belief in Michael and his abilities to perform, which was has been implied by Randy Phillips many times over, then why did they so heavily guard their monetary advances to Jackson? In this "Agreement", very little control was given to Michael and The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. Basically no control was given to Michael or The Michael Jackson Company, LLC when it came to how many shows were to be done. This "Agreement" leaves much room for interpretation for the amount of concert dates, too, and gives AEG the full right to deem the number they feel necessary especially concerning the need to recoup advances for the shows given to Michael and The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. One should keep in mind, this "Agreement" was for a world-wide tour (that likely is what is referred to as the "term") rather than just the shows at the O2 Arena. Michael said he was to do 10 shows in London--not total. He was pre-approved for 31--not obligated to do 31 by this "Agreement". The contract stipulates more (or even less though not so specific) shows could be done so long as certain criteria were met. Did someone lead Michel to believe the criteria could be met with 10 shows in London? It is reasonable to assume somewhere Michael may have believed he was doing 10 shows in London, by someone else's doing. I would like to know who explained this "Agreement" to him, who was present, who wrote it, who typed it up. After all, faxed and photocopied signatures were considered as valid as an original which seems odd considering all parties were in Los Angeles and could sign original documents and that leaves room for error (and/or illegalities). This "Agreement" also closes as a letter (again is this necessary or even correct for a multi-million dollar contract)? Not that it may be of any significance, but Michael's signatures look different (especially the "J" in Jackson) comparing his two signatures. This is likely nothing but worth noting, as Michael signed for The Michael Jackson Company, LLC rather than Dr. Tohme whom the letter/"Agreement" was addressed to specifically. I would love to know how this document stacks up compared to other comparable documents (ex. what did Madonna's tour agreements look like?). I have seriously signed contracts that were much longer (and more detailed) than this for much, much less important reasons. I would also love to know who told Michael what concerning this document. I would also like to know what legal representation Michael had and what their job was concerning this document. A lot of questions remain unanswered regarding Michael and his dealings with certain individuals especially in the last few months of his life. This contract just adds to those questions rather than answering them.
http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/AEG%20contract.pdf
My opinion (and I stress opinion) of the AEG "Agreement" with Michael:
First, the date appears to be marked out on the first page for some reason. A date should always be placed on a document, regardless of its possible significance, so hopefully that is in fact the date, otherwise, what a sham. I will consider that mark out the date, however and move on. This document is also referred to as an "Agreement" with very little detailed information provided about specifics which leaves a lot of room for interpretation and misunderstanding, especially on behalf of the non-authoring party, Michael Jackson Company, LLC and more specifically Michael, the lay man. For this document to be potentially worth millions of dollars and months (if not years) of business transactions, it seems to be very small, too small, in fact. It is merely 14 pages, not including certain exhibits (other documents). Also notice this "Agreement" begins with "Dear Dr. Tohme" which a) makes it appear to be a letter, not a contract (why not use a cover letter addressed to Dr. Tohme to introduce a legitimate contract?), b) is not addressed to Michael Jackson, the one with all at stake here (Michael goes on to sign it as the artist and representative for The Michael Jackson Company, LLC--Dr. Tohme does not sign the contract anywhere though through AEG Live's eyes he was the point of contact for the company) and c) it is highly unprofessional in appearance. Most professional letters would state "Dr. Tohme:", which Dr. Tohme has yet to prove he is in fact a legitimate doctor, actually. He apparently is not an attorney, either. Being that this "Agreement" had attention directed to Dr. Tohme, one would assume him as apparently the one who helped negotiate this "Agreement" between Michael and AEG Live, as well as the one who would have had knowledge about this contract and would, or should have relayed understanding to Michael regarding it, which likely should have been an attorney doing this along with a manager--not just someone who is reportedly a businessman with no previous business experience related to the music business known to exist.
Section 1: Definitions:
As far as I know, a copy of Exhibit A which should include what is meant by Terms, Shows, Territory, etc., which are key to interpreting this document is not public.
Section 3: Itinerary of Shows:
Verbatim from the "Agreement":
"Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) and Promoter (AEG Live) shall reasonably cooperate with each other in an effort to arrive at mutually approved itineraries for each leg of Shows during the Term; provided, however, it shall be unreasonable for Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) to withhold or qualify its approval of any itinerary or amended itinerary proposed by Promoter if the date range of such itinerary does not exceed ten (10) weeks, the frequency of Shows within such itinerary does not exceed one Show per day and 3.5 Shows per seven-day period, on average, and the locations of the proposed venues are in metropolitan areas. Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) hereby pre-approves up to thirty one (31) Shows, or such other greater number as agreed by Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) and Promoter(AEG Live), at the 02 Arena in London, England between July 26 and September 30, 2009. Subject to the foregoing, Promoter (AEG Live) and Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) shall mutually agree on the number of legs of Shows and the number of Shows in each leg during the Term, and Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) shall supply a first class performance of Artist (Michael) in accordance with this "Agreement" at all the Shows. Without limiting the generality of Promoters right to schedule Shows throughout the Term or Artistco’s (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC's) obligation to supply a first class performance of Artist (Michael) at all such Shows, in no event shall the number of Shows performed by Artist (Michael) in the first leg of the Tour be less than eighteen (18) Shows unless otherwise directed by Promoter. It shall be unreasonable for Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) to with hold its approval of adding Shows to any given leg of the Tour or adding legs of Shows to the Tour during the Term (so long as the number of Shows in any given leg do not exceed one per day and 3.5 per seven-day period, on average) if Promoter (AEG Live) demonstrates to Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) that such additional Shows and/or legs are necessary for Promoter (AEG Live) to recoup the Advances in accordance with the terms of this "Agreement". Prior to the commencement of any leg of the Tour, Promoter (AEG Live) shall provide Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) with financial models based on estimated Pool Expenses, Production Costs and Pool Revenue based on projections that assume Promoter shall sell tickets to ??? of the sellable capacity of the applicable venues. The parties shall attempt in good faith to agree upon the number of Shows that need to be scheduled for Promoter (AEG Live) to recoup all Advances in connection with such leg. As used here In, “leg” refers to a segment of Shows which are contiguous with each other in terms of time and geographic region. (e.g., North America,. the United Kingdom, Europe) and are not separated by more than three (3) weeks.
My interpretation of this above section of the "Agreement":
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live should attempt (but is not required) to agree to concert dates for each leg for the term. However, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC has no reason to either agree or disagree (effectively have no say either way) with any concert dates changed or proposed to be changed by AEG Live if the changes made or proposed are not longer than 10 weeks, do not exceed more than one show a day, include more than 3.5 shows a week and the locations are in big cities. Please understand the above sentence gives AEG Live the right to have changed/add tour dates so long the change was not more than 10 weeks, did not add two or more shows to one day, did not add more than 3.5 shows in a week and did not occurs in a rural area. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC pre-approved up to 31 shows (that does not mean 31 shows were deemed necessary per the "Agreement") and more could be added if agreed by The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live for the London O2 Arena between the dates of July 26th and September 30th, 2009. To me, this is like being pre-approved for a $1 million mortgage loan but you bought a house for $750,000 instead.
Please note: "This Is It" was scheduled to begin July 8th, was then pushed back to July 13th and the first leg was to conclude September 29th, 2009 (approximately an 11 week leg). Figuring in with the July 13th start date, that was to be a total of 27 shows for the first leg. Furthermore, there were 4 shows scheduled in one week, which is against the terms of this "Agreement": July 26th, July 28th, July 30th and August 1st which would is more than the 3.5 shows in one week. It has been stated by Frank DiLeo that before he replaced Dr. Tohme, the concerts were arranged in a format that was much more grueling than the dates that ultimately became the "This Is It" dates (4 or more shows a week).
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live were to come to an agreement on the number of legs and number of shows in each leg (however, remember that AEG Live had the right to change or propose changes so long as they were did not violate the four terms mentioned above (not longer than 10 weeks, etc.). Michael was to give a "first class performance" with each show. Without limiting AEG Live's right to schedule shows throughout the term (I assume the entire worldwide tour), and without interfering with Michael's obligation to give a "first class performance" at every show, in no event shall Michael have performed less than 18 shows in the first leg (he was scheduled for 27) unless AEG Live says there should or could be less done which could have made 10 shows theoretically possible, which is the amount Michael announced in the press conference to do in London, not for the duration of the term with AEG Live. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC had essentially no right to deny the addition of shows to legs of the tour during the term as long as there is not more than one show a day or 3.5 shows in 7 days ("on average", according to the "Agreement") if AEG Live proves to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC that more shows and/or legs are needed to for AEG Live to recoup their advanced costs for the shows. In other words, Michael was not allowed to disagree with the addition of shows if AEG Live found more shows necessary to cover their upfront costs for the tour. AEG Live and The Michael Jackson Company, LLC should attempt but is not required to agree upon the number of needed shows for AEG Live to recoup the advanced money for the shows. Thus, Michael had no genuine say in with this contract so long as AEG did not extended an itinerary over 10 weeks, add more than one show to a day, add more than 3.5 shows in one week or ask for a show in a non-metropolitan area. Michael was bound to oblige to AEG Live's tour schedule if they deemed it needed to gain back costs advanced to Michael. It is possible, then, for AEG to have agreed to 10 shows at the London O2 Arena. Michael did not say this was his final concerts but rather his final shows in London. Though 31 shows were pre-approved at the Arena that does not mean they were set in stone to be done, nor does it say the Artist but rather Artistco (The Michael Jackson Company, LLC) agreed to this number of pre-approved shows. Was it Michael or Dr. Tohme who agreed upon that number since Dr. Tohme is the one who is referenced as the point of contact for The Michael Jackson Company, LLC.
Section 4: Artist's (Michael's) Compensation
4.1 Michael was to be compensation based on contingency means Michael was likely to be paid but it was not guaranteed. Michael was entitled to receive 90% of the (marked out--earnings?, profits? etc.?) on a fully cross-collateralized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-collateralization) basis, after expenses and revenue were tied together and reviewed. A portion (not all) of his likely-to-be-paid payment was to be paid at the conclusion of each leg (meaning his first portion of payment would have occurred sometime after September 29th, at the conclusion of the first leg of the tour). He was not to be paid after each show which has been customary for some artists. Within ten days of September 29th, AEG Live would have given The Michael Jackson Company, LLC a preliminary statement of the shows, including what money was spent and what was made (expenses and revenues). Within five days after that, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC would be paid some unknown equivalent amount after AEG Live recouped any monies towards the advanced monies given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC for the shows. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC would be paid some amount of the "Contingent Compensation", "if any" then. The "if any" clause is actually verbatim from the "Agreement". By no later than 60 days (2 months) after the last show of the term (not leg) AEG Live would provide Michael with a final settlement that was fully-cross collateralized (factoring in both expenses and revenue). If overpaid, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to return that overpaid amount to AEG Live. AEG Live was allowed to make up for any monies owed by The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. AEG Live was to give The Michael Jackson Company, LLC a list of revenues and expenses twice a month.
4.2 Most of this clause is marked out. However, 4.2.1 refers to Exhibit B (the inducement letter) and Exhibit C (the promissory note). These are not public, as far as I know. Michael 's belongings were not used to secure the promissory note but anything owned by his company was, meaning, if Michael or his company failed to meet the requirements of the inducement letter, then AEG Live would retain control and possession of The Michael Jackson Company, LLC's belongings, whatever those may be. Michael and his company were loaned money by AEG Live against The Michael Jackson Company, LLC's property. The loan was to be repaid based on the agreement above (the Contingent Compensation clause).
Section 5: Promoter's Responsibilities
From "time to time" AEG Live would provide The Michael Jackson Company, LLC with possible concerts dates for each leg of a worldwide tour. Not much else in this section is of significance.
Section 6: Artist Responsibilities
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC should respond to possible tour dates within 5 days (though it does not specify that an agreement was necessary, only that a response shall be made). Michael was to perform at least 80 minutes, "first class", with no shows going over 3.5 hours. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and Michael himself were to maximize revenue (Pool Revenue). The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to pay for management, agency and legal fees. Please note, there is an area marked out that covers the name of an entity who was an exception to this clause. Whomever this person or entity was, they were being paid by AEG Live and this was being included as a Production Cost. Otherwise, the Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to pay for all other fees related to management, agency, and legal costs.
Section 7: Ticketing Activities:
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was allotted 10 complimentary tickets per show. AEG Live was to control ticket sales and as allowed to use secondary outlets for ticket sales. Apparently they used the company Viagogo as an attempt to scalp tickets to the "This Is It "shows in an attempt to maximize gain, with AEG Live to receive 80% of the profits (this information about Viagogo is NOT in the "Agreement" but has been revealed by other sources that can be provided).
Section 8: Production of the Shows
Michael was to work closely with AEG Live concerning the "creative aspects of the design of the Show", through approved parameters and a budget that was agreed upon by both Michael and AEG Live, while also using third-party vendors for assistance with the shows. Furthermore, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC was to pay AEG Live a producer's fee, and AEG Live could deduct that fee amount from amounts to be paid to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC.
Section 11: Approvals
The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live had the right, before any show, to pre-approve many items including a) "any itinerary changes including any and all decisions to add multiple dates". Perhaps some clarification should have been made by AEG regarding this clause as is highly vague but it appears to allow the addition of shows and if the terms in Section 3 apply, which they should, then Michael nor is company could deny additions of shows so long as they did not break the four fundamental rules that were stated above. Furthermore, neither The Michael Jackson Company, LLC (nor AEG Live though they did not have many stipulations against them) could essentially deny or delay approval of such changes when approval or consent is required. Remember, consent was required by Michael and the Michael Jackson Company, LLC especially concerning the recoup of advances paid to. Seems to imply that "no" was not an answer for Michael in most instances, in my opinion.
Section 12: Force Majeure
If a show is cancelled from a "greater force" (ex. earthquake) then neither The Michael Jackson Company, LLC nor AEG Live shall be liable. Other sections of this clause are marked out.
Section 13: Insurance
Michael had to agree and cooperate with AEG Live's purchasing life insurance, non-performance and cancellation insurance, etc. subject to confidentiality restrictions. Michael had to consent to physicals performed for these insurances. The Michael Jackson Company, LLC must stand behind Michael being free of any limiting health factors that would have kept him from giving a "first class performance" during the unknown term (is that Michael or Dr. Tohme who stood behind that statement; regardless Michael died a healthy man with some limitations perhaps from mild lung disease). The Michael Jackson Company, LLC had the option to get cancellation insurance if available and approved by AEG Live, to cover The Michael Jackson Company, LLC profits and productions costs that would also, at minimum, equal or be more than any losses from the advances given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC by AEG Live, with AEG Live to be named as the one paid for losses. The insurance policy would by no means alleviate The Michael Jackson Company, LLC of its obligations to pay back the advances from AEG Live to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. Whatever AEG Live had given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC had to be paid back--period--which is understandable. If AEG Live was to recoup the advances given to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC, then the rest of it should go to The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. If The Michael Jackson Company, LLC bought insurance to cover losses, the cost would become a Production cost and would be an expense that again relied on the "Contingent Compensation"--Michael's income for the tour. AEG Live, without permission, could obtain cancellation insurance to cover losses (Pool Expenses). The cost of that insurance itself would be a "Pooled Expense" cost, too. Apparently that would mean the cancellation insurance would be an expense incurred upon The Michael Jackson Company, LLC that again would come out of his possible income from AEG Live for the shows. Question: Did The Michael Jackson Company, LLC, acquire such insurance? All focus has been on the one insurance policy taken out by AEG through Lloyd's of London.
Section 14: Termination
Both The Michael Jackson Company, LLC and AEG Live could terminate this specific "Agreement" if one or the other failed to meet obligations. Death is not a curable event (nor is it mentioned in this "Agreement"). This clause ends by stating Michael and his company are to return advances even if this "Agreement" is terminated.
Section 16: Miscellaneous
16.1 This "Agreement" and the exhibits included (which are not public to the best of my knowledge) are meant to be a final document. Anything said previously, whether a negotiation, statement, representation or agreement is to be part of this "Agreement", but is to be considered inferior to this final document. However, neither AEG Live or The Michael Jackson Company, LLC is to have relied on any other information, orally communicated or not, that is not included in this "Agreement". Those two statements seem to be rather contradictory and vague. The "Agreement" is not to be changed unless done so in writing and signed by the party (either Michael, his company or AEG Live). Obviously some changes were made as the tour did not begin on July 26th as was the original date, as well as other dates. I seriously doubt Michael came up with the 10 show-figure all on his own to which he announced during the press conference, either. Also noticed that 50 shows were not named, either. The only number mentioned was 31 shows and those were pre-approved, not set.
16.3 To keep Michael and his company bound to perform the requirements in the contract, The Michael Jackson Company, LLC granted AEG Live the right to possible full-ownership (including rights, title, and interest) to some property or properties marked out on this "Agreement".
I do not have a background with law and I am not familiar with other written tour contracts, but I would like to know if it is a bit strange to ask for collateral for a tour. If AEG had such belief in Michael and his abilities to perform, which was has been implied by Randy Phillips many times over, then why did they so heavily guard their monetary advances to Jackson? In this "Agreement", very little control was given to Michael and The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. Basically no control was given to Michael or The Michael Jackson Company, LLC when it came to how many shows were to be done. This "Agreement" leaves much room for interpretation for the amount of concert dates, too, and gives AEG the full right to deem the number they feel necessary especially concerning the need to recoup advances for the shows given to Michael and The Michael Jackson Company, LLC. One should keep in mind, this "Agreement" was for a world-wide tour (that likely is what is referred to as the "term") rather than just the shows at the O2 Arena. Michael said he was to do 10 shows in London--not total. He was pre-approved for 31--not obligated to do 31 by this "Agreement". The contract stipulates more (or even less though not so specific) shows could be done so long as certain criteria were met. Did someone lead Michel to believe the criteria could be met with 10 shows in London? It is reasonable to assume somewhere Michael may have believed he was doing 10 shows in London, by someone else's doing. I would like to know who explained this "Agreement" to him, who was present, who wrote it, who typed it up. After all, faxed and photocopied signatures were considered as valid as an original which seems odd considering all parties were in Los Angeles and could sign original documents and that leaves room for error (and/or illegalities). This "Agreement" also closes as a letter (again is this necessary or even correct for a multi-million dollar contract)? Not that it may be of any significance, but Michael's signatures look different (especially the "J" in Jackson) comparing his two signatures. This is likely nothing but worth noting, as Michael signed for The Michael Jackson Company, LLC rather than Dr. Tohme whom the letter/"Agreement" was addressed to specifically. I would love to know how this document stacks up compared to other comparable documents (ex. what did Madonna's tour agreements look like?). I have seriously signed contracts that were much longer (and more detailed) than this for much, much less important reasons. I would also love to know who told Michael what concerning this document. I would also like to know what legal representation Michael had and what their job was concerning this document. A lot of questions remain unanswered regarding Michael and his dealings with certain individuals especially in the last few months of his life. This contract just adds to those questions rather than answering them.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Response to "The Sudden Death Of Michael Jackson: The Medical Facts About The Causes Of Death "
The Sudden Death Of Michael Jackson: The Medical Facts About The Causes Of Death by Andrew Dolan (I am assuming who is not an M.D., Pharm.D., R.N, etc...)
Review found here:
http://www.tomwilt.com/new-book-the-sudden-death-of-michael-jackson-the-medical-facts-about-the-causes-of-death-now-available/851327
My rebuttal:
FACT: Jackson had NO alcohol (ethanol) present in his body when he died and many who knew him never witnessed him to drink alcohol. No alcoholic beverages have been noted to have been found in the residence, either. Very few cases of alcohol withdrawal progress onto delirium tremens which is the most severe form of alcohol withdrawal. When treating withdrawal, especially something as serious as delirium tremens, the person would NOT be showing up for dance rehearsals only to go home be treated at bedtime. FACT: Jackson was not only healthy but possessed a HEALTHY LIVER per the autopsy report--something NOT seen in alcoholics who battle their addiction, especially for YEARS--they develop cirrhosis among MANY other health complications, including heart disease (Jackson had NONE), pancreatitis (none) and thiamine deficiency, which is treated during withdrawal, too. FACT: Propofol is typically NOT (if ever) used to treat alcohol withdrawal as one would have to be intubated for this to occur and if possible this should be avoided. Typically high-doses of benzodiazepines, up to 2,000 mg of diazepam a DAY may be required, a far cry from Jackson's 10 mg tablet. FACT: Benzodiazpines CAN be used to treat alcohol withdrawal but also serve many useful purposes, including treatment for anxiety and INSOMNIA, which can be idiopathic or caused from prednisone, too. FACT: Flumazenil is NOT used to treat alcoholism it is used to reverse sedation or treat benzodiazepine overdose ONLY. FACT: Someone can suffer from insomnia (there have been no reports that Jackson was being treated for anxiety as of current) and use benzodiazepines to treat the insomnia. All benzodiazepines prescriptions, except one, were labeled for INSOMNIA. The one exception to this was diazepam written only DAYS before his death by Conrad Murray, a cardiologist who is charged with Jackson's death. FACT: Prednisone can be used for many ailments and was NOT being used to treat liver disease in Jackson (if it is even used to treat actual liver disease at all). He had NO liver disease and the prednisone was written by Dr. Klein--A DERMATOLOGIST, licensed to treat discoid lupus. Dermatologists do NOT treat liver disease. Furthermore, extreme caution must be used in patients with liver disease who must take prednisone as the effects of the drug may be enhanced. FACT: There is NOT enough evidence to conclude that propofol is addictive, especially not physically addictive or when used in therapeutic doses, as Jackson supposedly requested for sleep. It forms NO tolerance and has little to NO withdrawals, especially in adult patients. If it were so addictive it would be a SCHEDULED DRUG--WHICH IT IS NOT. The only fact I see in this rubbish is propofol has been used as a murder weapon at least five times (4 cases in America, 1 in Indonesia), including with JACKSON. FACT: Less than 1% of patients experience green urine from propofol (and you failed to mention it can turn the nails, green, too). FACT: This author has no ties to Jackson and does not know ANYTHING about his possible past drug use. This extra-large tabloid may have 100 medical journal references but obviously the author does not know how to READ and UTILIZE them. FACT: This book is complete GARBAGE with the sole intent of promoting monetary gain for the author. DO NOT BUY IT.
Review found here:
http://www.tomwilt.com/new-book-the-sudden-death-of-michael-jackson-the-medical-facts-about-the-causes-of-death-now-available/851327
My rebuttal:
FACT: Jackson had NO alcohol (ethanol) present in his body when he died and many who knew him never witnessed him to drink alcohol. No alcoholic beverages have been noted to have been found in the residence, either. Very few cases of alcohol withdrawal progress onto delirium tremens which is the most severe form of alcohol withdrawal. When treating withdrawal, especially something as serious as delirium tremens, the person would NOT be showing up for dance rehearsals only to go home be treated at bedtime. FACT: Jackson was not only healthy but possessed a HEALTHY LIVER per the autopsy report--something NOT seen in alcoholics who battle their addiction, especially for YEARS--they develop cirrhosis among MANY other health complications, including heart disease (Jackson had NONE), pancreatitis (none) and thiamine deficiency, which is treated during withdrawal, too. FACT: Propofol is typically NOT (if ever) used to treat alcohol withdrawal as one would have to be intubated for this to occur and if possible this should be avoided. Typically high-doses of benzodiazepines, up to 2,000 mg of diazepam a DAY may be required, a far cry from Jackson's 10 mg tablet. FACT: Benzodiazpines CAN be used to treat alcohol withdrawal but also serve many useful purposes, including treatment for anxiety and INSOMNIA, which can be idiopathic or caused from prednisone, too. FACT: Flumazenil is NOT used to treat alcoholism it is used to reverse sedation or treat benzodiazepine overdose ONLY. FACT: Someone can suffer from insomnia (there have been no reports that Jackson was being treated for anxiety as of current) and use benzodiazepines to treat the insomnia. All benzodiazepines prescriptions, except one, were labeled for INSOMNIA. The one exception to this was diazepam written only DAYS before his death by Conrad Murray, a cardiologist who is charged with Jackson's death. FACT: Prednisone can be used for many ailments and was NOT being used to treat liver disease in Jackson (if it is even used to treat actual liver disease at all). He had NO liver disease and the prednisone was written by Dr. Klein--A DERMATOLOGIST, licensed to treat discoid lupus. Dermatologists do NOT treat liver disease. Furthermore, extreme caution must be used in patients with liver disease who must take prednisone as the effects of the drug may be enhanced. FACT: There is NOT enough evidence to conclude that propofol is addictive, especially not physically addictive or when used in therapeutic doses, as Jackson supposedly requested for sleep. It forms NO tolerance and has little to NO withdrawals, especially in adult patients. If it were so addictive it would be a SCHEDULED DRUG--WHICH IT IS NOT. The only fact I see in this rubbish is propofol has been used as a murder weapon at least five times (4 cases in America, 1 in Indonesia), including with JACKSON. FACT: Less than 1% of patients experience green urine from propofol (and you failed to mention it can turn the nails, green, too). FACT: This author has no ties to Jackson and does not know ANYTHING about his possible past drug use. This extra-large tabloid may have 100 medical journal references but obviously the author does not know how to READ and UTILIZE them. FACT: This book is complete GARBAGE with the sole intent of promoting monetary gain for the author. DO NOT BUY IT.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Have You Seen His Childhood?
Have You Seen His Childhood?
Michael openly expressed to the public the pain he felt from having no childhood. Though some in his family, such as his father, have said Michael did have time to "play", I have to say I do not think it was quite enough. I would love to know if child labor laws existed for children in the music business as they did for children in motion pictures back in the 1970s. I am not sure and since that is not my point of topic, I will just let it be. Back on topic, not only did Michael perform and record with his brothers but he juggled a solo career at the same time--he was a businessman beginning at the age of 10 when he signed a contract with Motown. Michael recorded numerous songs as a child. The following albums were recorded before he was 18 years old:
Diana Ross Presents the Jackson 5 (1969)
ABC (1970)
Third Album (1970)
The Jackson 5 Christmas Album (1970)
Maybe Tomorrow (1971)
Lookin' Through the Windows (1972)
Skywriter (1973)
G.I.T.: Get It Together (1973)
Dancing Machine (1974)
Moving Violation (1975)
The Jacksons (1976)
Got to Be There (1971)
Ben (1972)
Music and Me (1973)
Farewell My Summer Love (1973)
Forever, Michael (1975)
Keep in mind that each album contained so many songs (10-15 I would guess roughly) and each song would have been recorded more than once. Michael also recorded numerous songs that were never released. J. Randy Taraborrelli estimated how many songs Michael and his brother recorded, somewhere in the 400+ range, though I do not have my book with me to quote this or recall the actual time span for these 400 songs but he seemed to stress that Michael was recording (working) at an astronomical pace (if someone can provide that quote I would appreciate it, BTW). Michael and his brothers recorded, rehearsed, interviewed, did TV specials and toured while juggling school (usually only 3 hours a day) and social lives. I do not know how Michael (or his brothers) would have found much time for a social life, to be honest.
It is painful to hear Michael discuss, in the horrid Martin Bashir documentary no less, that while recording at Motown at about 11 or 12 years of age he would see children playing at the park across the street. He wanted to play, too, but he had to record--he had a job at 12 years old and was bound by contract to record. I know Michael enjoyed performing but when it came to him wanting to play, why did he not get a break from show business and just get to be a kid for a couple years? Did Michael ever ask for this or did he shun such a thought? I think it would have been good for him to not only try and be "normal" but to have also left the adult world behind for a bit that he was catapulted into when he was five years old (performing in clubs). Taking a break from the business may have cost him his adult career but I kind of doubt it--the talent and drive he possessed were second to none.
Michael has said "Childhood" is his most autobiographical song. Please listen to the song to feel his plea to be understood--and not harshly judged. Below are some of the lyrics:
"No one understands me,
They view it as such strange eccentricities,
'Cause I keep kidding around,
Like a child, but pardon me,
People say I'm not okay,
'Cause I love such elementary things,
It's been my fate to compensate,
for the Childhood I've never known."
Michael also is quoted as saying he wrote "Speechless" after a water balloon fight with some children. This, too, is a beautiful and emotional song. Below are some of the lyrics that point to me why he enjoyed the company of children so much:
"Though I'm with you I am far away and nothing is for real,
When I'm with you I am lost for words, I don't know what to say,
My head's spinning like a carousel, so silently I pray,
Helpless and hopeless, that's how I feel inside,
Nothing's real, but all is possible if God is on my side,
When I'm with you I am in the light where I cannot be found,
It's as though I am standing in the place called Hallowed Ground."
My point here (and for this entire blog more over) is Michael's love for children and child-like things is multi-faceted. He always said it was because he had no childhood, and in my opinion, that is only part of the reason. I do not think he realized other facets came into play, though, just like I do not think he explained his affliction with vitiligo very clearly. Perhaps if he (or moreover others) had understood what I am about to say maybe people would have understood him better and not been so quick to harass and judge him. There is such a thing as innocence and purity even with grown men. Perhaps if Michael had been a religious figure instead of an entertainer his innocence would have been more likely to have been accepted.
Children and their innocence was a refuge for Michael, which I can see in the lyrics to "Speechless". Throwing water balloons, chasing people around with Super Soakers and jumping on trampolines were a way for Michael to escape the pressures that had bound him since he was a child. Death threats, law suits and eventually abuse allegations later came and slowly began to destroy his life. Instead of wasting away, destroying himself or becoming hardened and mean--he played. Instead of giving up on a life that he admitted at times depressed him, he fought to keep closest to him what made him happy and he always loved--children, their innocence and most importantly their unconditional love. It is evident in photos and video footage from when he was a child that he loved children. One of my personal favorites is a old video of him pestering his niece Stacey (available on YouTube). Michael adored his nieces and nephews as he adored all children--including his own. That innocent love was a part of him, a part of his soul--not a ploy nor was there anything fake about it. He was as open about his love for children as you can get--he hid nothing back because he had nothing to be ashamed of because he did nothing wrong. Him being open and honest ended up costing him heavily, though, when it should not have. Michael was gullible, naive and sensitive--like a child. These characteristics inadvertently destroyed him--with the worst example of such manipulation of the aforementioned traits airing on our television screens in 2003.
I recommend listening to Michael's speech given at Oxford University (it is available on YouTube). He speaks about his childhood and things related to it for almost 40 minutes. I will list some of the most profound quotes from Michael below:
"You probably weren’t surprised to hear that I did not have an idyllic childhood. The strain and tension that exists in my relationship with my own father is well documented. My father is a tough man and he pushed my brothers and me hard, really hard, from the earliest age, to be the best, he wanted us to be the performers we could be."
"He had great difficulty showing affection. He never really told me he loved me. And he never really complimented me either. If I did a great show, he would tell me it was a good show. If I did an okay show, he would say nothing."
"He seemed intent, above all else, on making us a commercial success. And that, he was more than adept. My father was a managerial genius and my brothers and I owe our professional success, in no small measure, to the forceful way that he pushed us. He trained me as a showman and under his guidance I couldn’t miss a step."
"But what I really wanted was a Dad. I wanted a father--who showed me love, and my father never did that. He never said I love you while looking me straight in the eye, he never played a game with me. He never gave me a piggyback ride, he never threw a pillow at me, or a water balloon."
"But I remember once when I was about four years old, there was a little carnival and he picked me up and put me on a pony. It was a tiny gesture, probably something he forgot five minutes later. But because of that one moment I have this special place in my heart for him. Because that’s how kids are, the little things mean so much to them and for me, that one moment meant everything. I only experienced it that one time, but that one time made me feel really good, about him and the world."
From this you can see why Michael would go out of his way to make children feel loved. I was actually shocked to hear that Michael was an assertive parent. I figured he had no rules with his own children. That was not the case, however, and he did a great job of both setting firm, respectful foundations in this children while at the same time making them feel loved. I think Michael was able to do this because he wanted a "Dad" and learned from his father's mistakes. There is a big different between being a "father" and being a "Dad". A father physically creates another being, a "Dad" raises that child, loves them, protects them. Michael had a father, someone there who did want better for his children, but that is not the same as being a "Dad". The Jackson children do not even call Joseph "Dad"; to this day they call him "Joseph" by his own preference.
Michael vividly expressed his lack of feeling loved by his father while speaking at Oxford. He cried while talking about this. I think this lack of love made Michael easy prey, even by children though most children would never intentionally abuse this fault in Michael's character. However, I have to disagree with Michael and say that not all children, at least not older children, are innocent and loving. I think children like the Arvizo children were able to manipulate Michael. I do not think it was them who wanted to concoct the molestation charges but their demands to sleep in Michael's room were allowed by Michael because Michael did not want to hurt, especially a supposedly dying child's, feelings. He did not want to be hated by anyone, especially not children for telling them, "no", especially not a dying or orphaned child (which may be why he was able to lay down rules for his own children as they did not fit either of the two categories). I do not think Michael could have lived with himself if he even remotely thought he had hurt a child in any form, be it physical, verbal or emotional, especially not a sick or orphaned child. After all, he said he would rather slit his own wrists than to hurt a child. I firmly believe that statement.
I think the pressures of childhood fame, when everyone loves you for being "cute", and the lack of having a "Dad" created a strong desire for unconditional love in Michael. Michael even admitted in taped conversations how badly he just wanted to be loved:
"I am going to say something I have never said before and this is the truth. I have no reason to lie to you and God knows I am telling the truth. I think all my success and fame, and I have wanted it, I have wanted it because I wanted to be loved. That's all. That's the real truth. I wanted people to love me, truly love me, because I never really felt loved. I said I know I have an ability. Maybe if I sharpened my craft, maybe people will love me more. I just wanted to be loved because I think it is very important to be loved and to tell people that you love them and to look in their eyes and say it."
Michael knew in the adult world people could be mean, cruel, and certainly from him being a celebrity--adults loving him would love him conditionally. Michael was constantly manipulated by snakes who happened to be adults. They betrayed him over and over again. What could they gain from him? What benefit was it for them to be associated with him? These are questions some who associated themselves with Michael probably asked themselves. So many people misunderstand Michael. He really was not that complex. He actually very simple, very elementary. People made his life, from the outside, so complicated. Actually, his life was indeed complicated but his personality, his character on the other hand, was not. This is partly why he was played so easily as the fool.
Look at all the hospitals and orphanages Michael visited. Do not take my word for it--look at all the photographs, many of which are available at http://www.mjjpictures.com . Michael had mentioned he visited old people, too, sometimes while at hospitals. He just wanted to try and help people. Pedophiles would NOT be visiting orphanages especially while juggling a music tour--that kind of compassion is real and from the heart.
Michael also never wanted to look or be old. This was not from vanity, as I will explain shortly. I am still almost brought to tears every time I think of Michael saying he "looked like a lizard". What a cruel remark to make about one's self. He not only had to battle acne as a teen but later developed vitiligo and discoid lupus which affected his appearance. People, including his own father, insulted him about his nose. People choose to make fun of Michael because he had plastic surgery instead of looking at why he had it done and what lay beneath the reasons for the surgeries in the first place. He did NOT change his looks to change his sex or race. That is pathetic and ignorant to think such. He really thought he was ugly and obviously some doctors took advantage of this form of self-hatred. But then, to battle a disease like vitiligo (which was confirmed in the autopsy report--it is NOT a lie), what else could go wrong? I know Michael said he did not bleach his skin but he had to bleach his skin to prevent from being two-toned even though his vitiligo seemed to be very wide-spread. How would you feel if you were an African-American, or ANY race and you witnessed your own body erasing your own pigment and skin tone? People would have still made fun of Michael even if he had not had plastic surgery simply based on him having vitiligo. I can only imagine how I would react if I was born with certain features attributed with certain skin tones and then saw my skin tone erased, but still had those features. I would be confused, too, about how I should deal with it and look. I know many who are albinos struggle to be accepted by others simply from their skin tone. This is sad as I find albinos to be some of the most uniquely beautiful individuals on the planet. I feel for them, though, because I know with their condition comes some health problems.
I think above and beyond the pain of Michael not getting to be a child and not wanting to grow old lie something much, much deeper--Michael grew up. I cannot recall how many times Michael stated that people would be looking for "little Michael" only to realize that he was not so little anymore. People would "ewww" and make horribly rude remarks to him, publicly (in airports) and privately (at his Encino home). People called him ugly--right to his face, FOR GROWING UP. He was ridiculed and basically harassed for going through puberty--as every other child eventually does. This likely furthered his issues with plastic surgery, too, as he struggled to cope with aging. Aging is a normal part of life but for Michael it could have, and was predicted to, cost him his career, especially as a teen. I have seen an interview where he was asked what he would do when his voice changed. It should not have been a big deal or cost him his career--the talent was still there. People often say Michael spoke effeminately. No, he did not. He spoke like a child sometimes, masking his normal, deep voice at times, but not all the time. As much as people taunted him about his looks, I am sure he did not want to be taunted about his voice, too, with people commenting about how much it had changed. Puberty can be embarrassing--it was devastating for Michael. In fact, Michael's mother said that when his voice began to change at age 14 he simply ignored it as if it were not happening even though it was. For all the idiots that try to claim his voice did not change or he used female hormones to keep it high, go listen to Seth Riggs' vocal exercises tapes with Michael and listen for yourself (available on YouTube). Yes, Michael could actually sing bass. Michael's voice transitioned beautifully into one of the most sensual and soothing voices ever to be possessed by a man.
Statements from Robert Hilburn's article further point out my sentiments regarding Michael and his struggle with growing up (and his desire for unconditional love which is rarely provided by adults):
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-jackson-hilburn27-2009jun27,0,4897003.story?page=1
"I learned that he was so traumatized by events during his late teens--notably the rejection by fans who missed the "little" Michael of the Jackson 5 days--that he relied desperately on fame to protect him from further pain."
"Michael explained that his face was so covered with acne and his nose so large at that time that visitors to the family home in Encino sometimes wouldn't recognize him. 'They would come up, look me straight in the eye and ask if I knew where that "cute little Michael" was." It was as if the "whole world was saying, 'How dare you grow up on us.'"
"Michael said he started looking down at the floor when people approached or would stay in his room when visitors came to the house."
"Michael vowed to do whatever it took to make people 'love me again.' The rejection fueled his ambition to be the biggest pop star in the world and to try to make his face beautiful. Unfortunately, Michael's need was so great that no amount of love seemed to be enough."
"The stage was his sanctuary. There, he was larger than life and no one could threaten him. Every time he left the stage, he said, he felt vulnerable again."
The stage was not love, though. Michael was love.
I have also observed that children, unlike most adults, treated Michael more like a peer than a star or god. Michael commented many times on how he was normal, just like you and me. He was normal, he was not a god nor Christ. Michael simply had talents, like many of us, but he worked harder than most of us to perfect those talents. Some of that drive may have been innate, but I think a lot of it was fueled, as Michael said himself, to simply be loved, to fill a void he had in his heart that has been there for quite some time.
I have never understood the fanatical culture that seems to seize people's sanity, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. I will admit when I hear certain artists' music I jump for joy and get chills from good guitar solos--but it is from the music--not the person. People, especially women, many times if not almost all times, wanted Michael all to themselves. Michael did not like this behavior as he stated it himself on tape. No one would, really. No one wants to feel "owned". I guess some people are like this regardless--not just with Michael. Many people are very possessive in relationships. That kind of behavior is not okay and eventually it destroys a relationship, or keeps it from ever forming. Michael did not like being isolated and reclusive and this kind of behavior around him caused problems for him--bigger than I think anyone realized--except for Michael. It depressed him. He made the statement above in his own autobiography. Even in his death I see so much jealousy and hatred surrounding Michael's name and a lot of it is reminiscent of this "ownership" behavior I just spoke about. Why are people, no, adults still doing this to him? Michael belongs to all of us who love him now and deserved to be shared with all that will grow to love him someday. This behavior also forced Michael to be closer to children. They did not own him--they were more willing to share him and simply be his friend. They wanted unconditional love from him, not romantic love and he did not want romantic love from a child either--he wanted innocent and unconditional love that asked for nothing in return, no money, no fame, no contracts and certainly no romance. His relationship with children was as minimal as one could be because it was not clouded by anything--it was just based off of caring for someone other than yourself and having simple fun.
So many of the problems I have just discussed above, in my firm opinion, help explain why Michael was the way he was, why he is so confusing to some and how he found himself accused of sexual molestation in 1993 and 2005. People need to understand all of Michael to understand his life.
Michael's life was put in grave danger from the baseless allegations brought against him for child abuse. As Charles Thomson wrote in his blog entitled, "Preview: True Crime with Aphrodite Jones - The Michael Jackson Trial" (http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/04/preview-true-crime-with-aphrodite-jones.html), "Tom Sneddon had so little evidence to support his case in 1993 that two separate grand juries refused to allow him to bring charges against Jackson." Most people do not know that. Know it now. Why was this not made vibrantly public? Because it would not generate stories and revenue for the media if people knew it. A good place to start educating yourself about Michael, if you have not begun so already, is by reading Charles Thomson's blog and Aphrodite Jones' "Conspiracy". Geraldine Hughes' authored a book about the 1993 entitled "Redemption" though I have not had a chance to read her book, yet.
Michael did not ask for his life to play out the way it did—he did not bring most of this upon himself, at least, not intentionally or rightfully so. Michael did not ask for Evan Chandler to coerce his son to say he was inappropriate with him. Michael did not ask for the media to lie about him, twist and turn stories about him and even bold-face lie about him. He did not ask to be stalked day and night by the paparazzi. He did not ask for people to stalk him trying to become his romantic partner. Stalking, by the way, is one of the most intimidating of all actions a person can commit—that is why people get restraining orders against their stalkers though Michael did not do such because he did not want to hurt adults, either. He did not want to hurt anyone and in the end it only hurt him. Michael did not ask for the Arvizos to hurt him and to lie about him. He was trying to help a child he thought was dying. He did not ask to be lied to by people, especially people claiming to care about him. Even “good” people can become bad when they feel they can get something out of someone (this is why Michael had such a strong relationship with Elizabeth Taylor especially, but others child stars as well like Shirley Temple-Black). Michael did not ask to lose trust in everyone from other people's actions. He did not ask to be financially ruined and to have his career and life permanently disfigured by others who changed public thinking from him being strange to being a pedophile. There is no comparison between someone being strange and someone being a criminal. Can you not feel his misery after all I have said? Can you not feel his pain, the pain he felt all the time? What kind of person could face this every day and every night and be able to continue living? It never went away. His problems never went away.
People should not wonder why Michael liked being with children now--I just laid it out for you. He was more apt to trust children, to be unconditionally loved by them, to be able to be a person instead of a deity with them. He loved children from an early age and loved to be carefree like a child so he could escape the pressures of the world that never left him behind. Children did not fall to the ground in tears from touching his hand as some adults did--they just smiled and threw a water balloon at him. You can get close to a smile--you cannot get close to someone who does not see them, or you, as you.
What I want from this blog is for people to stop hurting Michael, even if he is not here anymore. I know there are some people that will always be mean and hateful and will not even attempt to understand him but most people are not cruel, they are just uninformed, confused and have been fed crap by the media that can rarely get any newsfeed correct. People need to analyze Michael with unbiased, but open-minded sympathy. I am not asking you to blindly believe me but to at least think about all I have said and will continue to say about Michael. Maybe then the world at large will finally think with their heart, like Michael did, and realize finally who he really was and accept him as a unique person with a very unique life who learned how to adapt peacefully the best way he could during his too-short life.
Michael openly expressed to the public the pain he felt from having no childhood. Though some in his family, such as his father, have said Michael did have time to "play", I have to say I do not think it was quite enough. I would love to know if child labor laws existed for children in the music business as they did for children in motion pictures back in the 1970s. I am not sure and since that is not my point of topic, I will just let it be. Back on topic, not only did Michael perform and record with his brothers but he juggled a solo career at the same time--he was a businessman beginning at the age of 10 when he signed a contract with Motown. Michael recorded numerous songs as a child. The following albums were recorded before he was 18 years old:
Diana Ross Presents the Jackson 5 (1969)
ABC (1970)
Third Album (1970)
The Jackson 5 Christmas Album (1970)
Maybe Tomorrow (1971)
Lookin' Through the Windows (1972)
Skywriter (1973)
G.I.T.: Get It Together (1973)
Dancing Machine (1974)
Moving Violation (1975)
The Jacksons (1976)
Got to Be There (1971)
Ben (1972)
Music and Me (1973)
Farewell My Summer Love (1973)
Forever, Michael (1975)
Keep in mind that each album contained so many songs (10-15 I would guess roughly) and each song would have been recorded more than once. Michael also recorded numerous songs that were never released. J. Randy Taraborrelli estimated how many songs Michael and his brother recorded, somewhere in the 400+ range, though I do not have my book with me to quote this or recall the actual time span for these 400 songs but he seemed to stress that Michael was recording (working) at an astronomical pace (if someone can provide that quote I would appreciate it, BTW). Michael and his brothers recorded, rehearsed, interviewed, did TV specials and toured while juggling school (usually only 3 hours a day) and social lives. I do not know how Michael (or his brothers) would have found much time for a social life, to be honest.
It is painful to hear Michael discuss, in the horrid Martin Bashir documentary no less, that while recording at Motown at about 11 or 12 years of age he would see children playing at the park across the street. He wanted to play, too, but he had to record--he had a job at 12 years old and was bound by contract to record. I know Michael enjoyed performing but when it came to him wanting to play, why did he not get a break from show business and just get to be a kid for a couple years? Did Michael ever ask for this or did he shun such a thought? I think it would have been good for him to not only try and be "normal" but to have also left the adult world behind for a bit that he was catapulted into when he was five years old (performing in clubs). Taking a break from the business may have cost him his adult career but I kind of doubt it--the talent and drive he possessed were second to none.
Michael has said "Childhood" is his most autobiographical song. Please listen to the song to feel his plea to be understood--and not harshly judged. Below are some of the lyrics:
"No one understands me,
They view it as such strange eccentricities,
'Cause I keep kidding around,
Like a child, but pardon me,
People say I'm not okay,
'Cause I love such elementary things,
It's been my fate to compensate,
for the Childhood I've never known."
Michael also is quoted as saying he wrote "Speechless" after a water balloon fight with some children. This, too, is a beautiful and emotional song. Below are some of the lyrics that point to me why he enjoyed the company of children so much:
"Though I'm with you I am far away and nothing is for real,
When I'm with you I am lost for words, I don't know what to say,
My head's spinning like a carousel, so silently I pray,
Helpless and hopeless, that's how I feel inside,
Nothing's real, but all is possible if God is on my side,
When I'm with you I am in the light where I cannot be found,
It's as though I am standing in the place called Hallowed Ground."
My point here (and for this entire blog more over) is Michael's love for children and child-like things is multi-faceted. He always said it was because he had no childhood, and in my opinion, that is only part of the reason. I do not think he realized other facets came into play, though, just like I do not think he explained his affliction with vitiligo very clearly. Perhaps if he (or moreover others) had understood what I am about to say maybe people would have understood him better and not been so quick to harass and judge him. There is such a thing as innocence and purity even with grown men. Perhaps if Michael had been a religious figure instead of an entertainer his innocence would have been more likely to have been accepted.
Children and their innocence was a refuge for Michael, which I can see in the lyrics to "Speechless". Throwing water balloons, chasing people around with Super Soakers and jumping on trampolines were a way for Michael to escape the pressures that had bound him since he was a child. Death threats, law suits and eventually abuse allegations later came and slowly began to destroy his life. Instead of wasting away, destroying himself or becoming hardened and mean--he played. Instead of giving up on a life that he admitted at times depressed him, he fought to keep closest to him what made him happy and he always loved--children, their innocence and most importantly their unconditional love. It is evident in photos and video footage from when he was a child that he loved children. One of my personal favorites is a old video of him pestering his niece Stacey (available on YouTube). Michael adored his nieces and nephews as he adored all children--including his own. That innocent love was a part of him, a part of his soul--not a ploy nor was there anything fake about it. He was as open about his love for children as you can get--he hid nothing back because he had nothing to be ashamed of because he did nothing wrong. Him being open and honest ended up costing him heavily, though, when it should not have. Michael was gullible, naive and sensitive--like a child. These characteristics inadvertently destroyed him--with the worst example of such manipulation of the aforementioned traits airing on our television screens in 2003.
I recommend listening to Michael's speech given at Oxford University (it is available on YouTube). He speaks about his childhood and things related to it for almost 40 minutes. I will list some of the most profound quotes from Michael below:
"You probably weren’t surprised to hear that I did not have an idyllic childhood. The strain and tension that exists in my relationship with my own father is well documented. My father is a tough man and he pushed my brothers and me hard, really hard, from the earliest age, to be the best, he wanted us to be the performers we could be."
"He had great difficulty showing affection. He never really told me he loved me. And he never really complimented me either. If I did a great show, he would tell me it was a good show. If I did an okay show, he would say nothing."
"He seemed intent, above all else, on making us a commercial success. And that, he was more than adept. My father was a managerial genius and my brothers and I owe our professional success, in no small measure, to the forceful way that he pushed us. He trained me as a showman and under his guidance I couldn’t miss a step."
"But what I really wanted was a Dad. I wanted a father--who showed me love, and my father never did that. He never said I love you while looking me straight in the eye, he never played a game with me. He never gave me a piggyback ride, he never threw a pillow at me, or a water balloon."
"But I remember once when I was about four years old, there was a little carnival and he picked me up and put me on a pony. It was a tiny gesture, probably something he forgot five minutes later. But because of that one moment I have this special place in my heart for him. Because that’s how kids are, the little things mean so much to them and for me, that one moment meant everything. I only experienced it that one time, but that one time made me feel really good, about him and the world."
From this you can see why Michael would go out of his way to make children feel loved. I was actually shocked to hear that Michael was an assertive parent. I figured he had no rules with his own children. That was not the case, however, and he did a great job of both setting firm, respectful foundations in this children while at the same time making them feel loved. I think Michael was able to do this because he wanted a "Dad" and learned from his father's mistakes. There is a big different between being a "father" and being a "Dad". A father physically creates another being, a "Dad" raises that child, loves them, protects them. Michael had a father, someone there who did want better for his children, but that is not the same as being a "Dad". The Jackson children do not even call Joseph "Dad"; to this day they call him "Joseph" by his own preference.
Michael vividly expressed his lack of feeling loved by his father while speaking at Oxford. He cried while talking about this. I think this lack of love made Michael easy prey, even by children though most children would never intentionally abuse this fault in Michael's character. However, I have to disagree with Michael and say that not all children, at least not older children, are innocent and loving. I think children like the Arvizo children were able to manipulate Michael. I do not think it was them who wanted to concoct the molestation charges but their demands to sleep in Michael's room were allowed by Michael because Michael did not want to hurt, especially a supposedly dying child's, feelings. He did not want to be hated by anyone, especially not children for telling them, "no", especially not a dying or orphaned child (which may be why he was able to lay down rules for his own children as they did not fit either of the two categories). I do not think Michael could have lived with himself if he even remotely thought he had hurt a child in any form, be it physical, verbal or emotional, especially not a sick or orphaned child. After all, he said he would rather slit his own wrists than to hurt a child. I firmly believe that statement.
I think the pressures of childhood fame, when everyone loves you for being "cute", and the lack of having a "Dad" created a strong desire for unconditional love in Michael. Michael even admitted in taped conversations how badly he just wanted to be loved:
"I am going to say something I have never said before and this is the truth. I have no reason to lie to you and God knows I am telling the truth. I think all my success and fame, and I have wanted it, I have wanted it because I wanted to be loved. That's all. That's the real truth. I wanted people to love me, truly love me, because I never really felt loved. I said I know I have an ability. Maybe if I sharpened my craft, maybe people will love me more. I just wanted to be loved because I think it is very important to be loved and to tell people that you love them and to look in their eyes and say it."
Michael knew in the adult world people could be mean, cruel, and certainly from him being a celebrity--adults loving him would love him conditionally. Michael was constantly manipulated by snakes who happened to be adults. They betrayed him over and over again. What could they gain from him? What benefit was it for them to be associated with him? These are questions some who associated themselves with Michael probably asked themselves. So many people misunderstand Michael. He really was not that complex. He actually very simple, very elementary. People made his life, from the outside, so complicated. Actually, his life was indeed complicated but his personality, his character on the other hand, was not. This is partly why he was played so easily as the fool.
Look at all the hospitals and orphanages Michael visited. Do not take my word for it--look at all the photographs, many of which are available at http://www.mjjpictures.com . Michael had mentioned he visited old people, too, sometimes while at hospitals. He just wanted to try and help people. Pedophiles would NOT be visiting orphanages especially while juggling a music tour--that kind of compassion is real and from the heart.
Michael also never wanted to look or be old. This was not from vanity, as I will explain shortly. I am still almost brought to tears every time I think of Michael saying he "looked like a lizard". What a cruel remark to make about one's self. He not only had to battle acne as a teen but later developed vitiligo and discoid lupus which affected his appearance. People, including his own father, insulted him about his nose. People choose to make fun of Michael because he had plastic surgery instead of looking at why he had it done and what lay beneath the reasons for the surgeries in the first place. He did NOT change his looks to change his sex or race. That is pathetic and ignorant to think such. He really thought he was ugly and obviously some doctors took advantage of this form of self-hatred. But then, to battle a disease like vitiligo (which was confirmed in the autopsy report--it is NOT a lie), what else could go wrong? I know Michael said he did not bleach his skin but he had to bleach his skin to prevent from being two-toned even though his vitiligo seemed to be very wide-spread. How would you feel if you were an African-American, or ANY race and you witnessed your own body erasing your own pigment and skin tone? People would have still made fun of Michael even if he had not had plastic surgery simply based on him having vitiligo. I can only imagine how I would react if I was born with certain features attributed with certain skin tones and then saw my skin tone erased, but still had those features. I would be confused, too, about how I should deal with it and look. I know many who are albinos struggle to be accepted by others simply from their skin tone. This is sad as I find albinos to be some of the most uniquely beautiful individuals on the planet. I feel for them, though, because I know with their condition comes some health problems.
I think above and beyond the pain of Michael not getting to be a child and not wanting to grow old lie something much, much deeper--Michael grew up. I cannot recall how many times Michael stated that people would be looking for "little Michael" only to realize that he was not so little anymore. People would "ewww" and make horribly rude remarks to him, publicly (in airports) and privately (at his Encino home). People called him ugly--right to his face, FOR GROWING UP. He was ridiculed and basically harassed for going through puberty--as every other child eventually does. This likely furthered his issues with plastic surgery, too, as he struggled to cope with aging. Aging is a normal part of life but for Michael it could have, and was predicted to, cost him his career, especially as a teen. I have seen an interview where he was asked what he would do when his voice changed. It should not have been a big deal or cost him his career--the talent was still there. People often say Michael spoke effeminately. No, he did not. He spoke like a child sometimes, masking his normal, deep voice at times, but not all the time. As much as people taunted him about his looks, I am sure he did not want to be taunted about his voice, too, with people commenting about how much it had changed. Puberty can be embarrassing--it was devastating for Michael. In fact, Michael's mother said that when his voice began to change at age 14 he simply ignored it as if it were not happening even though it was. For all the idiots that try to claim his voice did not change or he used female hormones to keep it high, go listen to Seth Riggs' vocal exercises tapes with Michael and listen for yourself (available on YouTube). Yes, Michael could actually sing bass. Michael's voice transitioned beautifully into one of the most sensual and soothing voices ever to be possessed by a man.
Statements from Robert Hilburn's article further point out my sentiments regarding Michael and his struggle with growing up (and his desire for unconditional love which is rarely provided by adults):
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-jackson-hilburn27-2009jun27,0,4897003.story?page=1
"I learned that he was so traumatized by events during his late teens--notably the rejection by fans who missed the "little" Michael of the Jackson 5 days--that he relied desperately on fame to protect him from further pain."
"Michael explained that his face was so covered with acne and his nose so large at that time that visitors to the family home in Encino sometimes wouldn't recognize him. 'They would come up, look me straight in the eye and ask if I knew where that "cute little Michael" was." It was as if the "whole world was saying, 'How dare you grow up on us.'"
"Michael said he started looking down at the floor when people approached or would stay in his room when visitors came to the house."
"Michael vowed to do whatever it took to make people 'love me again.' The rejection fueled his ambition to be the biggest pop star in the world and to try to make his face beautiful. Unfortunately, Michael's need was so great that no amount of love seemed to be enough."
"The stage was his sanctuary. There, he was larger than life and no one could threaten him. Every time he left the stage, he said, he felt vulnerable again."
The stage was not love, though. Michael was love.
I have also observed that children, unlike most adults, treated Michael more like a peer than a star or god. Michael commented many times on how he was normal, just like you and me. He was normal, he was not a god nor Christ. Michael simply had talents, like many of us, but he worked harder than most of us to perfect those talents. Some of that drive may have been innate, but I think a lot of it was fueled, as Michael said himself, to simply be loved, to fill a void he had in his heart that has been there for quite some time.
I have never understood the fanatical culture that seems to seize people's sanity, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. I will admit when I hear certain artists' music I jump for joy and get chills from good guitar solos--but it is from the music--not the person. People, especially women, many times if not almost all times, wanted Michael all to themselves. Michael did not like this behavior as he stated it himself on tape. No one would, really. No one wants to feel "owned". I guess some people are like this regardless--not just with Michael. Many people are very possessive in relationships. That kind of behavior is not okay and eventually it destroys a relationship, or keeps it from ever forming. Michael did not like being isolated and reclusive and this kind of behavior around him caused problems for him--bigger than I think anyone realized--except for Michael. It depressed him. He made the statement above in his own autobiography. Even in his death I see so much jealousy and hatred surrounding Michael's name and a lot of it is reminiscent of this "ownership" behavior I just spoke about. Why are people, no, adults still doing this to him? Michael belongs to all of us who love him now and deserved to be shared with all that will grow to love him someday. This behavior also forced Michael to be closer to children. They did not own him--they were more willing to share him and simply be his friend. They wanted unconditional love from him, not romantic love and he did not want romantic love from a child either--he wanted innocent and unconditional love that asked for nothing in return, no money, no fame, no contracts and certainly no romance. His relationship with children was as minimal as one could be because it was not clouded by anything--it was just based off of caring for someone other than yourself and having simple fun.
So many of the problems I have just discussed above, in my firm opinion, help explain why Michael was the way he was, why he is so confusing to some and how he found himself accused of sexual molestation in 1993 and 2005. People need to understand all of Michael to understand his life.
Michael's life was put in grave danger from the baseless allegations brought against him for child abuse. As Charles Thomson wrote in his blog entitled, "Preview: True Crime with Aphrodite Jones - The Michael Jackson Trial" (http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/04/preview-true-crime-with-aphrodite-jones.html), "Tom Sneddon had so little evidence to support his case in 1993 that two separate grand juries refused to allow him to bring charges against Jackson." Most people do not know that. Know it now. Why was this not made vibrantly public? Because it would not generate stories and revenue for the media if people knew it. A good place to start educating yourself about Michael, if you have not begun so already, is by reading Charles Thomson's blog and Aphrodite Jones' "Conspiracy". Geraldine Hughes' authored a book about the 1993 entitled "Redemption" though I have not had a chance to read her book, yet.
Michael did not ask for his life to play out the way it did—he did not bring most of this upon himself, at least, not intentionally or rightfully so. Michael did not ask for Evan Chandler to coerce his son to say he was inappropriate with him. Michael did not ask for the media to lie about him, twist and turn stories about him and even bold-face lie about him. He did not ask to be stalked day and night by the paparazzi. He did not ask for people to stalk him trying to become his romantic partner. Stalking, by the way, is one of the most intimidating of all actions a person can commit—that is why people get restraining orders against their stalkers though Michael did not do such because he did not want to hurt adults, either. He did not want to hurt anyone and in the end it only hurt him. Michael did not ask for the Arvizos to hurt him and to lie about him. He was trying to help a child he thought was dying. He did not ask to be lied to by people, especially people claiming to care about him. Even “good” people can become bad when they feel they can get something out of someone (this is why Michael had such a strong relationship with Elizabeth Taylor especially, but others child stars as well like Shirley Temple-Black). Michael did not ask to lose trust in everyone from other people's actions. He did not ask to be financially ruined and to have his career and life permanently disfigured by others who changed public thinking from him being strange to being a pedophile. There is no comparison between someone being strange and someone being a criminal. Can you not feel his misery after all I have said? Can you not feel his pain, the pain he felt all the time? What kind of person could face this every day and every night and be able to continue living? It never went away. His problems never went away.
People should not wonder why Michael liked being with children now--I just laid it out for you. He was more apt to trust children, to be unconditionally loved by them, to be able to be a person instead of a deity with them. He loved children from an early age and loved to be carefree like a child so he could escape the pressures of the world that never left him behind. Children did not fall to the ground in tears from touching his hand as some adults did--they just smiled and threw a water balloon at him. You can get close to a smile--you cannot get close to someone who does not see them, or you, as you.
What I want from this blog is for people to stop hurting Michael, even if he is not here anymore. I know there are some people that will always be mean and hateful and will not even attempt to understand him but most people are not cruel, they are just uninformed, confused and have been fed crap by the media that can rarely get any newsfeed correct. People need to analyze Michael with unbiased, but open-minded sympathy. I am not asking you to blindly believe me but to at least think about all I have said and will continue to say about Michael. Maybe then the world at large will finally think with their heart, like Michael did, and realize finally who he really was and accept him as a unique person with a very unique life who learned how to adapt peacefully the best way he could during his too-short life.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson
When the insomniac Heath Ledger died in 2008, questions about his death and drug use/abuse/addiction quickly surfaced. Ledger's death was ruled to be from a combination of medications that resulted in respiratory arrest and subsequent death. It was not due to an accidental "overdose" but rather the combined effects of the drugs, all of which, except one, cause respiratory depression individually. Questions still remain about Ledger's death but it can only be assumed that at some point in time he accidentally, but likely willingly, took all the medications found in his system over the course of some extended amount of time. Regardless of his manner of death being from medications, those closest to him before his death did not speak about any drug abuse or addiction but rather his lack of being able to sleep, his respiratory illness while filming his last movie, stress and depression from the separation from his girlfriend and child and their lack of seeing any visible abuse or addiction in the months leading up to his death. Private details about his life were kept private, including details from his former girlfriend. The media were the only ones to speculate about serious drug abuse and/or addiction.
When ET/Insider said they had obtained "drug footage" of Ledger from 2006--it drew a backlash from many of his peers, including Natalie Portman, Sarah Jessica Parker, Ellen Page and Josh Brolin.
http://www.observer.com/2008/battle-rages-over-heath-ledger-drug-video
http://www.defamer.com.au/2008/02/upset_actors_let_etinsider_know_that_running_heath_ledger_video_could_lead_to_immediate_red_carpet_embargos-2/
His peers' outspoken outrage prevented the full airing of this video, much to the respect of Ledger's grieving family who have also always defended their son/brother. I agreed with the outrage over the video and applauded them all for being so vocal on behalf of this fallen talent.
So I ask the question--why is not the same being done for Michael Jackson?
Jackson's death is an on-going homicide (not accidental death) investigation yet vast amounts information, including speculation about his death and events that may or may not have taken place even decades prior to his death, have been discussed or willing given to the public. Even his autopsy report and various search warrants have been made readily accessible by anyone. This can do nothing but severely jeopardize the homicide case at hand if such a case is to ever get underway.
Jackson, too, had a chief complaint of insomnia like Ledger and had insomnia for many years by Jackson's own account. Not only did Dr. Conrad Murray admit in police testimony he administered all the drugs found in Jackson's system but he also gave them all, but Valium, via the parenteral route (through punctures in the skin) which does in fact question Jackson's compliance of the administration of these medications. Even if he did comply, Murray is the one who admits to physically administering all the medications in an inappropriate setting to Jackson and did so in a highly negligent manner, contrary to the statement he "gave nothing that should have killed Jackson". Jackson's involvement in his own death cannot be firmly established (hence homicide--injection by another), certainly not as firm as Ledger's accidental death yet Jackson's death and even past occurrences unrelated to his death are constantly being hurled around and spread further and further into outlets which are building the type of connotation that will destroy any hope of justice for him when he rightfully deserves justice once and for all. Nothing is strongly being done for Jackson but the additional defamation of a his name that was destroyed by lies years ago and the implication that he is falsely responsible for his own death while at the same time shifting blame away from Murray and in-effect clearing his name of wrongdoing without him even having to attempt to prove such. No wonder we see Murray at the beach and pumping iron in tabloid photos. These verbal and written actions not only deeply sadden me but give me great pain because it almost makes me feel like Jackson has been abandoned by those few he was actually able to get close to during his life, whether this abandonment is intentional or not by those individuals. I think many who speak on Jackson's behalf do not understand they are doing this to him and do not understand his death is much more complex than it seems. It is time for Michael Jackson to have a strong protective voice as Heath Ledger does. For those closest to Jackson to appropriately defend him, which I hope most of them want to defend him, they need to stop being sidetracked by the media's ploys to get them to spew useless past information/hearsay and instead demand the media focus on Murray and his actions if they wish to speak about his death, which should be deferred until a homicide trial is adjourned. On June 25th, 2009, Jackson was eventually rendered defenseless by a physician who had control of the situation and therefore held Jackson's life within his hands. We all do good and wrong in our lifetimes but thus far the majority of focus is on all the (possible) wrong in Jackson's life, some of which is baseless and even flat-out false. It is time to concentrate on the good as he did years of good deeds for others and his countless good actions would take years to be completely expressed.
Shouldn't we, as a whole, accept nothing but the same respect for Jackson in death that we have seen for Ledger, regardless of your feelings for either person? I should think so--no, I know so. Both of these men left behind young children, died from unnatural circumstances, had enormous talent and seemed to also care about others immensely. However, their levels of respect from others are not even close to being parallel. Something must be done about it. This is my plea. Do not forget how Jackson loved the planet, loved animals, loved children, loved life and loved you, more.
When ET/Insider said they had obtained "drug footage" of Ledger from 2006--it drew a backlash from many of his peers, including Natalie Portman, Sarah Jessica Parker, Ellen Page and Josh Brolin.
http://www.observer.com/2008/battle-rages-over-heath-ledger-drug-video
http://www.defamer.com.au/2008/02/upset_actors_let_etinsider_know_that_running_heath_ledger_video_could_lead_to_immediate_red_carpet_embargos-2/
His peers' outspoken outrage prevented the full airing of this video, much to the respect of Ledger's grieving family who have also always defended their son/brother. I agreed with the outrage over the video and applauded them all for being so vocal on behalf of this fallen talent.
So I ask the question--why is not the same being done for Michael Jackson?
Jackson's death is an on-going homicide (not accidental death) investigation yet vast amounts information, including speculation about his death and events that may or may not have taken place even decades prior to his death, have been discussed or willing given to the public. Even his autopsy report and various search warrants have been made readily accessible by anyone. This can do nothing but severely jeopardize the homicide case at hand if such a case is to ever get underway.
Jackson, too, had a chief complaint of insomnia like Ledger and had insomnia for many years by Jackson's own account. Not only did Dr. Conrad Murray admit in police testimony he administered all the drugs found in Jackson's system but he also gave them all, but Valium, via the parenteral route (through punctures in the skin) which does in fact question Jackson's compliance of the administration of these medications. Even if he did comply, Murray is the one who admits to physically administering all the medications in an inappropriate setting to Jackson and did so in a highly negligent manner, contrary to the statement he "gave nothing that should have killed Jackson". Jackson's involvement in his own death cannot be firmly established (hence homicide--injection by another), certainly not as firm as Ledger's accidental death yet Jackson's death and even past occurrences unrelated to his death are constantly being hurled around and spread further and further into outlets which are building the type of connotation that will destroy any hope of justice for him when he rightfully deserves justice once and for all. Nothing is strongly being done for Jackson but the additional defamation of a his name that was destroyed by lies years ago and the implication that he is falsely responsible for his own death while at the same time shifting blame away from Murray and in-effect clearing his name of wrongdoing without him even having to attempt to prove such. No wonder we see Murray at the beach and pumping iron in tabloid photos. These verbal and written actions not only deeply sadden me but give me great pain because it almost makes me feel like Jackson has been abandoned by those few he was actually able to get close to during his life, whether this abandonment is intentional or not by those individuals. I think many who speak on Jackson's behalf do not understand they are doing this to him and do not understand his death is much more complex than it seems. It is time for Michael Jackson to have a strong protective voice as Heath Ledger does. For those closest to Jackson to appropriately defend him, which I hope most of them want to defend him, they need to stop being sidetracked by the media's ploys to get them to spew useless past information/hearsay and instead demand the media focus on Murray and his actions if they wish to speak about his death, which should be deferred until a homicide trial is adjourned. On June 25th, 2009, Jackson was eventually rendered defenseless by a physician who had control of the situation and therefore held Jackson's life within his hands. We all do good and wrong in our lifetimes but thus far the majority of focus is on all the (possible) wrong in Jackson's life, some of which is baseless and even flat-out false. It is time to concentrate on the good as he did years of good deeds for others and his countless good actions would take years to be completely expressed.
Shouldn't we, as a whole, accept nothing but the same respect for Jackson in death that we have seen for Ledger, regardless of your feelings for either person? I should think so--no, I know so. Both of these men left behind young children, died from unnatural circumstances, had enormous talent and seemed to also care about others immensely. However, their levels of respect from others are not even close to being parallel. Something must be done about it. This is my plea. Do not forget how Jackson loved the planet, loved animals, loved children, loved life and loved you, more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
