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, 21:26
SCDchick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,317
I might come across as silly here, forgive me as i dont get into the showbiz news and whatnot much, but why do people not think that his kids are his biological kids?
SCDchick is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-04-2013, 23:13
ItsRyanYall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,074
Just let him rest in peace. What's wrong with people??? (I dont mean the OP)
This.
ItsRyanYall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 18:10
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 12,118
So surprise, surprise, Jackson's former maid has just said that he nearly died twice previously and that he was a messed up drug addict. Link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-junkie.html
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 19:00
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somewhere Only I Know
Posts: 15,434
It's incredibly sad that the promoters and his family can not let this man rest in peace after almost four years.. To be honest, I don't believe the children are biologically his but he was the only father they knew and people have surrogate children every single day, leave the man alone and his kids out of legal proceedings.. Some of his family disgust me, they made enough off him when he was alive and i'm sure they have made a hell of a lot off his name since his death
Hollie_Louise is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 19:55
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
So surprise, surprise, Jackson's former maid has just said that he nearly died twice previously and that he was a messed up drug addict. Link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-junkie.html
Are you serious?

The lady who is the source for that story was fired by MJ for stealing property from neverland and was subsequently sued by him for millions of dollars along with 4 other housekeepers. Her and the other 4 housekeepers were proven to have lied in his 2005 trial by stating that they had witnessed abuse of boys such as Macauley Culkin. She's a parasite who's made a life out of selling salacious stories with no merit to them to the tabloid press.

If you're trying to make an argument for MJ being a 'junkie', atleast use a reputable source otherwise you just look like you have no idea what you're talking about.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 20:50
Nikkiclody
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tipp
Posts: 1,690
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.
He bought them just like Angelina and Madonna and all the other rich celebs in America. Michael just pretended they were his.

It's funny though Michael bought white babies! the celebs always want they they can't have..actually no they always get whatever they want.
Nikkiclody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 21:02
tigerowl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 163
I've just spent an hour looking at photos of MJ (old natural looking and recent clown face ones) and the kids. There is absolutely no way Prince can be genetically related to him. There is not a single sliver of Jackson about him.
tigerowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 22:23
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I've just spent an hour looking at photos of MJ (old natural looking and recent clown face ones) and the kids. There is absolutely no way Prince can be genetically related to him. There is not a single sliver of Jackson about him.
Except of course, a rare genetic skin disease.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 22:25
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 12,118
Are you serious?

The lady who is the source for that story was fired by MJ for stealing property from neverland and was subsequently sued by him for millions of dollars along with 4 other housekeepers. Her and the other 4 housekeepers were proven to have lied in his 2005 trial by stating that they had witnessed abuse of boys such as Macauley Culkin. She's a parasite who's made a life out of selling salacious stories with no merit to them to the tabloid press.

If you're trying to make an argument for MJ being a 'junkie', atleast use a reputable source otherwise you just look like you have no idea what you're talking about.
I believe he did have a problem but you are obviously a die hard fan who can't accept that he had a drug problem.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 22:36
rattie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,133
It's incredibly sad that the promoters and his family can not let this man rest in peace after almost four years.. To be honest, I don't believe the children are biologically his but he was the only father they knew and people have surrogate children every single day, leave the man alone and his kids out of legal proceedings.. Some of his family disgust me, they made enough off him when he was alive and i'm sure they have made a hell of a lot off his name since his death
Unfortunately he didn't think of the chidren he bought and calculatingly deprived of mothers did he? He was a mess and meddled with the lives of others to create some sort of dysfunctional family. A pitiful man but he is not the only one who deserves sympathy here.
rattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 22:36
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I believe he did have a problem but you are obviously a die hard fan who can't accept that he had a drug problem.
Ad hominem attack. You attack the arguer rather than the argument itself out of desperation.

Show me where i said he didn't have a drug problem at any point in his life? I didn't

I merely pointed out that the story you posted is clearly fabricated by a woman who was proven to have been sacked by MJ for stealing his property. I've never denied that MJ had a drug problem, for example in 1993, when he openly admitted it himself and went to rehab for it. But there is zero evidence that he 'died twice' on previous occasions.

Like i say, if you want to claim that MJ was a drug addict, go ahead. But you're using the most unreliable sources possible.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 22:47
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Unfortunately he didn't think of the chidren he bought and calculatingly deprived of mothers did he? He was a mess and meddled with the lives of others to create some sort of dysfunctional family. A pitiful man but he is not the only one who deserves sympathy here.
Learn the facts. Debbie Rowe has very openly stated that she has never wanted to be a mother, hence why she has none of her own kids, and that she was willingly the surrogate mother for his children. There was nothing calculating about it.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 22:54
rattie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,133
Learn the facts. Debbie Rowe has very openly stated that she has never wanted to be a mother, hence why she has none of her own kids, and that she was willingly the surrogate mother for his children. There was nothing calculating about it.
I'm well aware of the facts. I never said the blame lay solely at his door did I?
Calculating on both sides I'm afraid. Neither gave much thought about the price to be paid by the children. Deliberately creating such a situation was dysfunctional and unhealthy, whoever played a part in it.
rattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 23:13
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I'm well aware of the facts. I never said the blame lay solely at his door did I?
Calculating on both sides I'm afraid. Neither gave much thought about the price to be paid by the children. Deliberately creating such a situation was dysfunctional and unhealthy, whoever played a part in it.
There is nothing dysfunctional about a single parent bringing up children. It wasn't like they never had a female presence in their lives because they had the nanny Gracy Rwaramba who they were apparently very close to. And by all acounts the kids seem very down to earth and grounded when they have been interviewed.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2013, 23:51
rattie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,133
There is nothing dysfunctional about a single parent bringing up children. It wasn't like they never had a female presence in their lives because they had the nanny Gracy Rwaramba who they were apparently very close to. And by all acounts the kids seem very down to earth and grounded when they have been interviewed.
Hmmm, I think you are missing the point. People who pay women to bear them children with the deliberate intention of bringing them up without a mother's input from the outset are not making any attempt to consider the impact on the children. It's completely self serving and I honestly can't see how it's defensible.

I doubt we will ever agree.
rattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 09:54
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 12,118
Hmmm, I think you are missing the point. People who pay women to bear them children with the deliberate intention of bringing them up without a mother's input from the outset are not making any attempt to consider the impact on the children. It's completely self serving and I honestly can't see how it's defensible.

I doubt we will ever agree.
Have to say I agree with you although Paris has been pictured with Debbie recently.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 18:38
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somewhere Only I Know
Posts: 15,434
Unfortunately he didn't think of the chidren he bought and calculatingly deprived of mothers did he? He was a mess and meddled with the lives of others to create some sort of dysfunctional family. A pitiful man but he is not the only one who deserves sympathy here.
So if you don't have a partner you shouldn't have kids? He didn't calculatingly deprive the children at all, the mother to the eldest two did not wish to be a mother but was happy to make MJ a father, there is nothing wrong with that and I'm pretty sure Prince and Paris don't see what their father did was calculating they see a man who brought them up, tried his very very best to keep them out of the public eye, with the masks and all that stuff, and afforded them a very good lifestyle

Are you saying any parent who gets their children through a surrogate is calculatingly depriving them of mothers, even if said surrogate doesn't wish to be one?

I never even said he deserved sympathy either, I said the man deserves to rest in peace and not have a multi-million dollar company and his family fighting over money using his name to do so, they both made a shed-load of money through Michael and unfortunately in death, to them he has become that much more valuable
Hollie_Louise is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 19:22
Sloopy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 64,050
Unfortunately he didn't think of the chidren he bought and calculatingly deprived of mothers did he? He was a mess and meddled with the lives of others to create some sort of dysfunctional family. A pitiful man but he is not the only one who deserves sympathy here.
This isn't a subject exclusive to MJ though.

Indeed, it's par for the course these days, almost encouraged, for folk to go about creating their families via alternative methods and nobody bats an eyelid. Yet the biology of MJ's three children, who by all accounts appear to have had a solid upbringing with the only father they ever knew, is continually brought into question as if everybody else has the automatic right to know.
Sloopy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 19:47
rattie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,133
So if you don't have a partner you shouldn't have kids? He didn't calculatingly deprive the children at all, the mother to the eldest two did not wish to be a mother but was happy to make MJ a father, there is nothing wrong with that and I'm pretty sure Prince and Paris don't see what their father did was calculating they see a man who brought them up, tried his very very best to keep them out of the public eye, with the masks and all that stuff, and afforded them a very good lifestyle

Are you saying any parent who gets their children through a surrogate is calculatingly depriving them of mothers, even if said surrogate doesn't wish to be one?

I never even said he deserved sympathy either, I said the man deserves to rest in peace and not have a multi-million dollar company and his family fighting over money using his name to do so, they both made a shed-load of money through Michael and unfortunately in death, to them he has become that much more valuable
Of course he did it calculatingly. He bought babies via surrogacy. That is calculating. Fact. With the intention that those children would not have a mother 's input. Also fact.

The vast majority of surrogates give their child over into a situation where they have a mother. To suggest a nanny is any sort of substitute is very unrealistic, no offence.(although it wasn't you who said that). In fact I'm saddened that anyone could think that's an adequate replacement.

You may think MJ's chosen parenting is acceptable.....I don't. I think it's utterly selfish not to mention damaging.

If you honestly think draping your children in masks and isolating them is healthy behaviour in the interests of any child then I'm afraid I don't feel your judgement carries much weight.

Whatever the behaviour of his familly who are left behind is not really what I'm getting at. What does rest in peace really mean? Are any people who have passed over actually disturbed by the subsequent behaviour of those they leave behind? It''s almost a cliche really more about those who live on than those who have passed over, if you follow.
rattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 12:47
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 12,118
You make some good points rattie. MJ is dead so nothing we say or do will make any difference now. I agree with you that he was a very selfish calculating man who had those children made to order and then deprived them of a mother. Some people obviously don't think that is important but the nanny was only ever an employee who was later dismissed.

I hope the Jacksons lose the lawsuit and with it all the money. They leeched off MJ when he was alive and did nothing to stop his drug addiction and weird obsession with cosmetic surgery. What did any of them ever do for him? It was all covered up with pretence and artifice. He was a very sick man (mentally if not physically) for years before he died. He was the one who shopped for doctors who would supply him with the meds he wanted.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 13:17
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,676
If you're trying to make an argument for MJ being a 'junkie', atleast use a reputable source otherwise you just look like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Brian Panish, the lead attorney for Katherine Jackson....

Panish said the singer's family and friends knew of his addiction to prescription drugs, especially Demerol, yet AEG professed ignorance when contracting him for a gruelling series of concerts.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 13:43
Keyser Soze
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 16,110
By the sounds of it, this court case is going to get very, very nasty.

Can the Jacksons hold their nerve against a big business like AEG?
Keyser Soze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 14:18
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 12,118
MJ aside, how many other performers currently touring have problems with drug and alchohol abuse? A great number I should imagine. If AEG lose this will prove a huge problem for the entertainment industry. Look at the state Amy Winehouse was in towards the end and she kept on doing gigs.

Ultimately I believe that people are responsible for their own health and if they chose to take legal or illegal drugs then concert promoters (however ruthless) should not be held accountable for this.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 19:42
Thommo1234
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In't Pub
Posts: 86
Learn the facts. Debbie Rowe has very openly stated that she has never wanted to be a mother, hence why she has none of her own kids, and that she was willingly the surrogate mother for his children. There was nothing calculating about it.
i like your posts tomclarky,i cannot believe at some of the posts debating whether those 3 children were MJs or not when surrogacy happens everywhere and no body questions it,as far as i'm concerned two of his children were HIS and Debbie Rowe and one was with anonymous surrogate-who cares whose seed it was-he was their father end of and they loved him.
Ive seen lately that the girl Paris has started seeing her birth mother Debbie Rowe and are taking it slow but good for them that they are bonding as Mother and daughter,
As for the Jacksons-i personally wish they'd leave things be but i've never been in their position so i cannot say how they'd feel,
Thommo1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2013, 20:34
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Yes he had a history with Demerol and was treated for a dependency to it in 1993.

Was Conrad Murray supplying it to him in 2009? No. Was any of it found in his bedroom after he died? No. Was Demerol in MJ's system when he died? No again.

The actual quote you're referring to starts with the phrase "Over the years.." which is correct because he's referring to past occasions. There is no evidence he was physically addicted to any substance around the time of his death.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:07.