Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Michael Jackson's blanket of secrecy to be removed?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-04-2013, 13:47
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
It's very possible that all three children are biologically MJ's. Prince supposedly has vitiligo and you only have to look at people like Rashida Jones to see how children from one black and one white parent can turn out.

Even if they are not, it's ridiculous that it is even a matter of discussion. He raised them all from birth so they are his children.
MJ is not the only person in the world with vitiligo, its quite common, besides its only hearsay that the son has it. I don't believe for a second that any of the kids are his biological children, they were all engineered to order.

LaToya is claiming that there was a group of people who conspired to have Michael murdered
Can anyone shed any light on why she is still perpretrating this fantasy?
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-04-2013, 13:58
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
MJ is not the only person in the world with vitiligo, its quite common, besides its only hearsay that the son has it. I don't believe for a second that any of the kids are his biological children, they were all engineered to order.

LaToya is claiming that there was a group of people who conspired to have Michael murdered
Can anyone shed any light on why she is still perpretrating this fantasy?
You only have to go on google images and search 'prince vitiligo' to see the photo. If he does indeed have it then surely it is no coincidence.

You use the term 'engineered to order' like it's something bad, when it all it would be is a sperm doner and a surrogate mother. Happens every day in the world.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 14:07
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
You missed the point. I meant it's silly that people care enough about the subject to discuss it in the first place, regardless of whether they are biologically his or not.
I find the paternity/maternity issue of the children to be quite fascinating and believe there was a certain amount .of engineering going on seemingly for MJ to have perfect kids with the looks/traits he wanted. The vitiligo argument proves nothing. I won't believe they are his kids until an DNA test is done.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 14:10
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I find the paternity/maternity issue of the children to be quite fascinating and believe there was a certain amount .of engineering going on seemingly for MJ to have perfect kids with the looks/traits he wanted. The vitiligo argument proves nothing. I won't believe they are his kids until an DNA test is done.
A wild accusation that you have no evidence for.

I didn't say it proves anything beyond doubt. It's just highly unlikely that it would be a coincidence.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 14:17
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
A wild accusation that you have no evidence for.

I didn't say it proves anything beyond doubt. It's just highly unlikely that it would be a coincidence.
No wilder than the fantasies slung about by the Jackson family who have absolved Michael for any blame for anything ever.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 14:20
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
No wilder than the fantasies slung about by the Jackson family who have absolved Michael for any blame for anything ever.
If you're referring back to LaToya's murder claim then yeah that's another crazy accusation that has no merit.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 15:56
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
Apparently Paris is wanting to get Conrad Murray to testify that he was forcing drugs into Jackson at the bequest of the concert promoters. She is just as much of a fantascist as LaToya, they just can't face up to the fact he was a drug addict.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 16:26
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Apparently Paris is wanting to get Conrad Murray to testify that he was forcing drugs into Jackson at the bequest of the concert promoters. She is just as much of a fantascist as LaToya, they just can't face up to the fact he was a drug addict.
What's your proof that he was a drug addict at the time of his death? All the medications in his body when he died were being administered to him by the doctor for the sole purpose of trying to get him to fall unconscious and achieve some kind of rest. No painkillers whatsoever were in his body or contributed to his death. Propofol is not even an addictive substance so i don't know how you can claim he was an addict.

He didn't die because he was popping pills just to get by every day and accidentally took too many. He died because the doctor that was hired to sedate him every night overdosed him with surgical anaesthetic that he had no idea how to use. It doesn't matter how much money he was offered or whether or not MJ would've found another willing doctor if he'd refused. Doctors have a duty of care and Murray failed in every single way. He is rightly in jail for manslaughter.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 16:46
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
Well of course I can't prove anything any more than you can but MJ's use of strong prescription medicine is out there in the media. It is alleged that he became addicted to painkillers after that awful accident when his hair got burnt and tranquilisers after the child abuse trial. I guess we will never know for sure but it seems likely to me.

Conrad Murray should never have done what he did but MJ would have found another doctor to supply him with what he wanted if he had refused. In my view this makes him responsible for himself, just as every junkie in the world is responsible for themselves. They can't blame their dealers.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 17:02
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Well of course I can't prove anything any more than you can but MJ's use of strong prescription medicine is out there in the media. It is alleged that he became addicted to painkillers after that awful accident when his hair got burnt and tranquilisers after the child abuse trial. I guess we will never know for sure but it seems likely to me.

Conrad Murray should never have done what he did but MJ would have found another doctor to supply him with what he wanted if he had refused. In my view this makes him responsible for himself, just as every junkie in the world is responsible for themselves. They can't blame their dealers.
There are many provable things in relation to his death.

MJ's use of painkillers in the 90's is no secret because he went to rehab for it. But it has no relation to the period of time in 2009 before his death. You're just making the wild assumption that because he was addicted to Demerol at one point in his life, that was what killed him.

What don't you understand about the fact that the drug that killed Michael Jackson is impossible to become physically addicted to? That's a fact. There were no painkillers in his body when he died. Fact. This wasn't a junkie, dealer scenario. Not even Murray himself tried to use that defence in his trial! The doctor was hired for the specific reason to get MJ to sleep every night with surgical anaesthetic, proven by evidence he ordered about 40 gallons of the stuff. It was also proven in his trial that he regularly set MJ up on a make shift drip and then left the room and used the phone while he overdosed. I've never said that MJ is entirely blame free for his death, but to say he was a junkie is factually incorrect.

If i go to my GP and offer him money to inject me with a huge dose of something and it subsequently kills me, you don't think the doctor is at all responsible?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You've already decided that MJ died an addict and will ignore any evidence that says otherwise.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 17:39
J_Alex
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5
MJ is not the only person in the world with vitiligo, its quite common, besides its only hearsay that the son has it. I don't believe for a second that any of the kids are his biological children, they were all engineered to order.
It's not only hearsay, Prince's family members & his girlfriend have all said he has it. And actually, vitiligo is not common at all, it affects less than 1% of the population. The likelihood that MJ ended up with a kid that is not biologically his and had that exact same disease is so unbelievably slim. Not to mention people with autoimmune diseases cannot donate sperm.

Are you kidding me? Genetically engineered his kids? Genetic engineering is still only in trial stages & even still is only used to prevent diseases not to pick & choose physical traits. It didn't exist in '96.
J_Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 17:50
violetcrawley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 351
I read somewhere that when he was found dead that he was totally bald and wore a wig.
Also that he was extremely thin and extremely underweight.
violetcrawley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 18:44
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
It's not only hearsay, Prince's family members & his girlfriend have all said he has it. And actually, vitiligo is not common at all, it affects less than 1% of the population. The likelihood that MJ ended up with a kid that is not biologically his and had that exact same disease is so unbelievably slim. Not to mention people with autoimmune diseases cannot donate sperm.

Are you kidding me? Genetically engineered his kids? Genetic engineering is still only in trial stages & even still is only used to prevent diseases not to pick & choose physical traits. It didn't exist in '96.
You've contradicted yourself here. Vitiigo is linked with autoimmune disease so what are you saying? No matter what fans say on here unless there is DNA evidence I will not believe the kids are biologically MJs.

People who use sperm donors are selective in the states,they can choose colour of skin/eyes/level of education etc. This is what I meant.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 18:53
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
I don't believe that Conrad Murray was employed by anyone other than Michael himself to give him the sleeping medicine. Pressure of work commitments might have made MJ need the stuff more but to claim that it was being administered on the command of this tour organisers ....... well I don't believe it.

MJ was an expert of diverting attention and covering things up. I believe he was a very manipulative person and not at all what he pretended to be.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:23
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I don't believe that Conrad Murray was employed by anyone other than Michael himself to give him the sleeping medicine. Pressure of work commitments might have made MJ need the stuff more but to claim that it was being administered on the command of this tour organisers ....... well I don't believe it.

MJ was an expert of diverting attention and covering things up. I believe he was a very manipulative person and not at all what he pretended to be.
I never said the tour company was ordering Murray to give the medication so your whole post is irrelevant. Your original claim was that MJ died a junkie, which i've already completely refuted.

And you say.. 'Pressure of work commitments might have made MJ need the stuff more', you clearly don't realise that insomnia caused by pressure from the tour rehearsals was the only reason he felt he needed to be administered nightly doses of Propofol. It's crazy to suggest he would've been using it otherwise.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:27
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
I never said the tour company was ordering Murray to give the medication so your whole post is irrelevant.
I don't think so. Isn't this the crux of the matter? The family are trying to claim that the tour promotion company were somehow behind Michael being medicated. My view is that it was Michael's choice to take the stuff and he employed Murray to give it to him.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:34
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I don't think so. Isn't this the crux of the matter? The family are trying to claim that the tour promotion company were somehow behind Michael being medicated. My view is that it was Michael's choice to take the stuff and he employed Murray to give it to him.
I don't disagree it was Michael's choice to be given Propofol. That still doesn't prove he was a drug addict and a junkie like you originally said.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:38
brumilad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,016
I don't think anybody is saying AEG ordered Conrad Murray to give Michael the medication... even Paris.

What they're saying is that the contract between Conrad Murray and AEG is what led to Conrad making the decisions he did. That the AEG contract was all about making sure Michael could do the tour. That Conrad was paid to do that, not to make sure Michael was healthy regardless of the tour.

Whether it's true or not is another thing... however it's a reasonable argument. If a doctor is employed and paid on the basis of their patient having to perform then their duty of care to the actual patient is compromised.
brumilad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:41
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I don't think anybody is saying AEG ordered Conrad Murray to give Michael the medication... even Paris.

What they're saying is that the contract between Conrad Murray and AEG is what led to Conrad making the decisions he did. That the AEG contract was all about making sure Michael could do the tour. That Conrad was paid to do that, not to make sure Michael was healthy regardless of the tour.

Whether it's true or not is another thing... however it's a reasonable argument. If a doctor is employed and paid on the basis of their patient having to perform then their duty of care to the actual patient is compromised.
Exactly. Plus the fact that AEG knew that MJ was very unwell and unable to perform yet still pressurised him and threatened him with financial ruin if he didn't rise to the occasion. The family argue their reluctance to cancel tour when they knew he was physically not up to it, contributed to his death by forcing him to rely even more on medication to deal with the stress.

There have been leaked emails between AEG execs where they say they need to 'remind Murray who is paying his salary and what is expected of him'.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:45
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
Still don't see that this can be laid at the door of AEG. Murray could have advocated anything to ensure MJ was fit for the tour eg. swedish exercises followed by yoga and mineral supplements. The question remains whether MJ requested that particular drug be used on him or if Murray just decided that was what he needed. It seems likely that MJ himself asked for that drug. Why would a doctor prescribe an anaesthetic out of the blue? It just doesn't fit.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 19:47
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Still don't see that this can be laid at the door of AEG. Murray could have advocated anything to ensure MJ was fit for the tour eg. swedish exercises followed by yoga and mineral supplements. The question remains whether MJ requested that particular drug be used on him or if Murray just decided that was what he needed. It seems likely that MJ himself asked for that drug. Why would a doctor prescribe an anaesthetic out of the blue? It just doesn't fit.
No one is saying that anyone other than MJ requested Propofol. He had had it given to him on his HIStory tour in 1997 after all.

That doesn't absolve AEG of any negligence in relation to his death though. They knew he was unwell and was struggling with rehearsals, so they should of cancelled the shows instead of putting more pressure on him.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 20:10
brumilad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,016
Still don't see that this can be laid at the door of AEG. Murray could have advocated anything to ensure MJ was fit for the tour eg. swedish exercises followed by yoga and mineral supplements.
But he didn't.

AEG employed this man, they created the contract. They I assume were asking for regular updates on his condition, what measures were being taken etc... and if not why not?

They employed a person in a trusted position, they are a multi-million pound business with all the facilities to assure that this figure is 'trusted' and to constantly check throughout his employment.

If you employ someone to do a job and they ultimately fail then you bear some level of responsibility for it.

That's not to say Jacko wasn't begging for the drugs but even if that was the case Conrad was the doctor, it was his decision to make and you do have to question if he had refused and said 'I don't think he's fit enough to perform' would AEG have thanked him for caring about Micheal or would they have sacked him and employed someone who would do as they were told?

I absolutely think Michael bares some responsibility for his demise but the fact is he's a just man, he's no expert. Conrad Murray was and AEG were the team who employed him and in doing so backed his expertise.
brumilad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 20:10
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
No one is saying that anyone other than MJ requested Propofol. He had had it given to him on his HIStory tour in 1997 after all.

That doesn't absolve AEG of any negligence in relation to his death though. They knew he was unwell and was struggling with rehearsals, so they should of cancelled the shows instead of putting more pressure on him.
How were they negligent? Being unwell and collapsing on a tour could happen to any artist regardless of how fit they appear to be at the beginning. He signed up to do too many gigs thats for sure but it was a business arrangement and as the artist MJ and his management should have cut a better deal or renegotiated when they found he was struggling. Perhaps they should have claimed against the insurance?

Again it probably all comes down to money and both parties wanted to make as much cash as possible. MJ was just as much to blame, he knew he wasn't up to it. He would have done one or two gigs then pulled out claiming ill health. He miscalculated and it cost him his life.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 20:22
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
How were they negligent? Being unwell and collapsing on a tour could happen to any artist regardless of how fit they appear to be at the beginning. He signed up to do too many gigs thats for sure but it was a business arrangement and as the artist MJ and his management should have cut a better deal or renegotiated when they found he was struggling. Perhaps they should have claimed against the insurance?

Again it probably all comes down to money and both parties wanted to make as much cash as possible. MJ was just as much to blame, he knew he wasn't up to it. He would have done one or two gigs then pulled out claiming ill health. He miscalculated and it cost him his life.
Tour companies have a duty of care to their artists. If they can see that they are not physically up to it then they shouldn't "shout at them so loud the walls are shaking" and threaten them with financial ruin.

They knew from very early on that he wasn't up to it. Remember the press conference in March 2009? There was an email from an AEG exec on that day saying "MJ is drunk and despondant in his hotel room and is full of self-loathing and doubt now that it's show time".

There are other emails where AEG execs talk about how they are going to mislead MJ in business meetings about how much money he stood to earn from the concerts.

They were negligent by agreeing to hire a personal doctor for MJ without checking out that he was in a lot of debt and therefore may not have ethics at the top of his agenda. They also didn't provide the doctor with the necessary equipment he needed.

They had no care whatsover for MJ's failing health and he subsequently died at the hands of the doctor they agreed to pay the salary for. I'm not saying they are directly to blame for his death, but they were negligent along the way and certainly could've avoided the end result.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 20:35
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 11,782
I remember it well and thinking at the time that the gigs would probably never happen, or at most he would only do one or two appearances before crying off. There must have been some form of insurance to cover this eventuality.

Murray should never have given MJ those drugs but unless anyone can prove that he forced MJ to take them I just don't see how the Jacksons can win this one.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:23.