Digital Spy Forums

Digital Spy Forums (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/index.php)
-   Showbiz (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=101)
-   -   Michael Jackson's blanket of secrecy to be removed? (http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1818095)

i4u 16-04-2013 06:35

Michael Jackson's blanket of secrecy to be removed?
 
The New York Post is reporting the promoters of the ill fated 'This Is It' shows is prepared to uncover that only Blanket, has the King of Pop’s DNA.

The promoters AEG are the subject of a $40 billion legal claim by Katherine Jackson and the three children.

Quote:

"There was a whole lot that Michael Jackson or his family wasn’t and isn’t being forthcoming about,” an AEG source said. “The drug use by Jackson, his use of alcohol, his relationship with his own family, and the identities of the children’s parents.”

Among the evidence AEG could present are sworn affidavits, including one from a mystery woman identified only as “Helena,” who could be Blanket’s mother.
Some years ago in a TV interview Michael Jackson told the world Blanket was born out of a loving relationship with a woman he knew, but in the same interview he said he had no idea who the mother was just that she was healthy.

Will Mark Lester be stepping up to the plate again?

beast1982 16-04-2013 07:28

Just let him rest in peace. What's wrong with people??? (I dont mean the OP)

jackbell 16-04-2013 07:41

I always get the hump when his caucasian kids are paraded in the news as 'his' children. Adopted, yes but not biologically.

Dave3622 16-04-2013 07:41

The opening post made no sense to me at all until I realised the word 'blanket' was referring to a person. How bizarre !!

dee123 16-04-2013 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by beast1982 (Post 65402418)
Just let him rest in peace. What's wrong with people??? (I dont mean the OP)

The answer to that question is simple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF4EtQ

Inspiration 16-04-2013 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by i4u (Post 65402219)
The New York Post is reporting the promoters of the ill fated 'This Is It' shows is prepared to uncover that only Blanket, has the King of Pop’s DNA.

It's none of our business. Why do AEG feel this is even relevant? It has absolutely nothing to do with them or the events they were planning on staging. We have no right to be told anything regarding his children. I hope the Jackson family ensures that remains the case.

Betty Britain 16-04-2013 08:44

Michaels family won't let him rest in peace if there is money to be made..

belive940 16-04-2013 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by beast1982 (Post 65402418)
Just let him rest in peace. What's wrong with people??? (I dont mean the OP)

Oh I think it is the OP,S life's work to make sure M J never rests in peace, quite sad really.

L-una 16-04-2013 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackbell (Post 65402463)
I always get the hump when his caucasian kids are paraded in the news as 'his' children. Adopted, yes but not biologically.

Of course they are his children.What does it matter if they have his DNA or not? They called him Dad and never knew any other parent but him.

L-una 16-04-2013 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by i4u (Post 65402219)
The New York Post is reporting the promoters of the ill fated 'This Is It' shows is prepared to uncover that only Blanket, has the King of Pop’s DNA.

The promoters AEG are the subject of a $40 billion legal claim by Katherine Jackson and the three children.



Some years ago in a TV interview Michael Jackson told the world Blanket was born out of a loving relationship with a woman he knew, but in the same interview he said he had no idea who the mother was just that she was healthy.

Will Mark Lester be stepping up to the plate again?

And your point is....?

Daisy Bennyboots 16-04-2013 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betty Britain (Post 65402874)
Michaels family won't let him rest in peace if there is money to be made..

...and for that reason, I guess "Jackson Kids Paternity" prime time TV show the minute they turn 16.

Either way, I don't think it will be a secret forever. Paris is seemingly building a relationship with Debbie Rowe and although I'm sure they adored their father,they will wants answers at some point.

Sloopy 16-04-2013 11:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by beast1982 (Post 65402418)
Just let him rest in peace. What's wrong with people??? (I dont mean the OP)

On the contrary.

Four years on, the cryptic posts continue.....

Sloopy 16-04-2013 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackbell (Post 65402463)
I always get the hump when his caucasian kids are paraded in the news as 'his' children. Adopted, yes but not biologically.

Many adoptive parents probably refer to adopted children as 'theirs' as well. They are the ones who care for and raise their children.

As far as they're concerned MJ is their father. It's not really anybody else's place to question that.

Betty Britain 16-04-2013 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daisy Bennyboots (Post 65404369)
...and for that reason, I guess "Jackson Kids Paternity" prime time TV show the minute they turn 16.

Either way, I don't think it will be a secret forever. Paris is seemingly building a relationship with Debbie Rowe and although I'm sure they adored their father,they will wants answers at some point.

And I believe they have a right to those answers..but they shouldn't be done in public or on TV

Fizgig 16-04-2013 12:25

Or Blanky of secrecy.

haphash 16-04-2013 12:31

I've always been curious about how Michael acquired these children. Yes he was their father in terms of looking after them but he obviously did not produce the sperm to perform the biological part of fatherhood.

Why? is the big question. It's not difficult for a man to produce sperm for artificial insemination.
I've always found the having children to order and being able to choose the mother/father extremely creepy.

I think the kids have a right to know who their biological parents are.

haphash 16-04-2013 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-una (Post 65403715)
Of course they are his children.What does it matter if they have his DNA or not? They called him Dad and never knew any other parent but him.

Of course it matters. We demand to know :D

Fizgig 16-04-2013 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-una (Post 65403715)
Of course they are his children.What does it matter if they have his DNA or not? They called him Dad and never knew any other parent but him.

Do any of the kids know who their biological mum (or mum/dad) are?

codeblue 16-04-2013 14:09

I cannot believe that three children turn up from nowhere and no questions are asked by the authorities. You cannot just adopt children like this - and with his background.

haphash 16-04-2013 14:11

Lets say it is safe to assume that none of the 3 are biologically Michael's children. I have 2 questions about this:
1. Why did he not donate sperm himself for artificial insemination?
2. If he couldn't produce sperm, then why didn't he use a black donar?
He could have chosen a black male with a passing resemblence to himself and if he had done so people would assume the kids were fathered by him. I find this very strange.

Nobody has yet been able to answer these questions satisfactorily.

lexi22 16-04-2013 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by haphash (Post 65405359)
I've always been curious about how Michael acquired these children. Yes he was their father in terms of looking after them but he obviously did not produce the sperm to perform the biological part of fatherhood.

Why? is the big question. It's not difficult for a man to produce sperm for artificial insemination.
I've always found the having children to order and being able to choose the mother/father extremely creepy.

I think the kids have a right to know who their biological parents are.

Maybe he couldn't have kids? Didn't he have vitiligo... maybe he had other genetic disorders which he didn't want to pass on?

ETA: Maybe whoever donated the sperm was a good friend and colour didn't come into it?

codeblue 16-04-2013 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by lexi22 (Post 65407220)
Maybe he couldn't have kids? Didn't he have vitiligo... maybe he had other genetic disorders which he didn't want to pass on?

Vitiligo?

No, you are mixing that up with skin bleaching

lexi22 16-04-2013 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeblue (Post 65407353)
Vitiligo?

No, you are mixing that up with skin bleaching

No, not mixing anything up. It was confirmed in the autopsy that he suffered from it. Everyone knows he went in for skin bleaching but that doesn't negate the fact he had the condition.

But whatever. Not interested enough to argue, just thought I'd add my 2p worth re why MJ may not have been in a position to have bio kids. :)

haphash 16-04-2013 14:39

Vitiligo isn't a life threatening condition. It can be genetically inherited but it doesn't automatically follow that a child will have it if the parent does. None of MJs siblings appear to have it.
It seems very unlikely that this is the reason he didn't father the children.

As for the racial issue it surprises me still that he didn't want a black sperm donor. His family are black and identify themselves as part of African-American culture. If they had a black parent his children would more easily fit in with the rest of the family. I know people will say, what does it matter what colour the kids are, but in America they are more into labelling themselves than we are.

lexi22 16-04-2013 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by haphash (Post 65407605)
Vitiligo isn't a life threatening condition. It can be genetically inherited but it doesn't automatically follow that a child will have it if the parent does. None of MJs siblings appear to have it.
It seems very unlikely that this is the reason he didn't father the children.

As for the racial issue it surprises me still that he didn't want a black sperm donor. His family are black and identify themselves as part of African-American culture. If they had a black parent his children would more easily fit in with the rest of the family. I know people will say, what does it matter what colour the kids are, but in America they are more into labelling themselves than we are.

? I never said it was a life threatening condition. Merely pointing out that he suffered from it. If it was something that affected him badly (not just physically but psychologically and emotionally), then it could have been a factor in that he didn't want a child of his to go through the same thing. And let's remember, he wasn't exactly living on planet earth for most of his adult life so judging him by 'normal' logic is pretty pointless.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18.