Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael"/ Excerpt @pg151/New Interview Post 3743

^^

Maybe Frank shouldn't have adressed this in his book. I mean there are some things that should have been kept private out of respect. What happened happened. I have impression to read gossips that a neighbor would spread about his nextdoor neighbor without asking the permission to spread the story, something like "...and did you know that he said..."
 
A Frank's interview,I used the translate to read this.

http://www.metrofrance.com/culture/...-n-etait-pas-un-pedophile/mlfg!DCN0D9myjFWSY/

A bit of this:

''He wanted a family, but not with the bad?

No, he wanted a family like any other. Besides, he really thought it would work with Lisa Marie Presley when he married. Because they both came from the same universe. And just because he loved her. The problem is that he had spent his life doing only what he wanted, whenever he wanted. He did not make compromises, small sacrifices necessary when one wants a relationship work.''
 
This is an hour interview it feels longer because they have to translate everything to Frank and back to those asking the questions in english. The Michael album comes up and Imma skip talkin about that here but, I'm not convinced though...I talk about that more on the Michael album thread.

As for the rest of the interview he mentions the reason for the book is because he did not like how others were going on TV actin as experts and MJ friends when they knew really nothin. He says he knows people had issue with the drug talk in the book but, he mentioned it because he wanted to put things into context.

But, as I said before he kinda messed up in that part for me and added to the B.S IMO. Okay movin on he also mentions that he did wanted to testify on MJs behalf during the trial but, T-Mez decided not to call him nor his other brother or sister. That he don't know why MJ thought the opposite and Eddie aswell who he had got into a problem with durin this time because he thought frank did not want to testify for MJ too. o_O He recently talk to T-mez. That T-mez will tell u he wanted to testify but decided not to put him on the stand and feels T-Mez should write a book. He said we will see the interview soon? It's like he was tryin to say a book from T-mez is comin? That is the feel I got but, could be wrong?

He says MJ was no pedo. He was a family friend/brother/father to him and they stood by him when the 93 allegations broke out cause they knew he didn't do anything wrong. Frank says last he saw MJ in person was in 07 at the house ( guess he means Jersey) but that he kept in contact for the last two yrs of Mjs life. Said he was planning to go to London for This is it to work with MJ and Frank Dileo.

Seems like there is more questions but the second half that is 13mins ends during a question...not sure if the person filming kept goin after this?
 
Last edited:
Wow...June 25th must be near because all three characters , Jermaine, Latoya & Frank are pushing their wares. Nothing says I miss you , like using the anniversary of someone's passing to make money.

I don't think he decided the date of the release of his book.
 
susna;3653165 said:
A Frank's interview,I used the translate to read this.

http://www.metrofrance.com/culture/...-n-etait-pas-un-pedophile/mlfg!DCN0D9myjFWSY/

A bit of this:

''He wanted a family, but not with the bad?

No, he wanted a family like any other. Besides, he really thought it would work with Lisa Marie Presley when he married. Because they both came from the same universe. And just because he loved her. The problem is that he had spent his life doing only what he wanted, whenever he wanted. He did not make compromises, small sacrifices necessary when one wants a relationship work.''

Heres the translation for all of it

Frank Cascio: "Michael Jackson was not a pedophile"
Michael Jackson's close friend, personal assistant to the late 1990s, Frank Cascio trusts in "My friend Michael" (Michel Lafon). For Metro, he recounts his unique relationship with the king of pop.



Son of the manager of a five-star Manhattan, Frank Cascio was only 4 years old when he met Michael Jackson for the first time. Subsequently, his family has regularly hosted the singer who made his confidential Frank in the late 1990s. Three years after the tragic death of singer, it offers a new perspective on one of the greatest legends of music history.

Why publish this book while you remained discreet or very secret all these years with Michael Jackson?

Long the idea of ​​writing a book on Michael seemed completely absurd. In truth I had not even ever really thought. The day he died, I also received a proposal for a million dollars to tell my years with him and I thought it was totally uncalled for. Vulgar. I was raised by parents who gave me incredible integrity and a certain moral ... It was insulting to offer me all this money. After Michael's death, I decided to take stock of my life, I settled with friends in Germany, and I began to write. Pages and pages. It was like therapy, to overcome this ordeal. Not in the idea of ​​being published.

What made you change your mind?

When I saw all these people write books on Michael as they had never met. How can we improvise "expert" or "friend" of someone when he was barely cross the street? After a moment I considered it my duty to give my version of things. Nothing happens by chance. My relationship of 25 years with Michael is not a coincidence. No one but me could write this book. I met Michael at the age of 4 years, I started working for him when I was barely out of adolescence. No one has spent as much time with him, from morning to night, through good times and bad. With this book, I wanted to put things in context. Honestly, without sentimentality excessive. I meant the friend of man. Not the king of pop.

What is the pre-conceived idea about Michael that you want to scan with this book?

Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. When I hear that ... It's just disgusting. I knew him for 25 years, I was one of those little boys who slept with him to Neverland. And I can say that he never had any sexual attraction to children. Personally I think that abusing a child is worse than being a serial killer. And I know that Michael thought so too.

How did he react to these accusations. Was he angry? Overwhelmed?

You know what? In 1993, when it was wrongly accused of abusing Jordan Chandler, he was sorry for that little. Because he knew he was being manipulated by his father. The second time, in 2004, when he was accused by Gavin Arvizo ... All I can say is that the boy's mother is a lunatic who should be locked in a mental hospital. A person capable of using her child to cancer make money .... Michael wanted to help these people, he wanted to give them hope ...

It was naive?

His heart was too big, he wanted to save everyone. And on arrival, it was he who was injured, manipulated, abused countless times. It just happens that I do not understand is how the American justice system can go that far, how he can hear people talking nonsense. For example, I've been accused of trying to remove Arvizo. Want to take them to Brazil to make them function. Like I was Tony Soprano!

Back to artist Michael. How he explained that he has become a thousand times more popular than his brothers?

Michael, it was Harry Potter. It was magical, blessed. He not only had talent, but what differentiated him from his brothers, this is work. Nothing could distract him in his quest for perfection. This is one of the many things I learned from him that you are concierge, chef or singer ... We must never let up. He told me that when his brothers were playing basketball, he kept repeating the choreography of the Jackson 5. And when they had finished playing, it was he who taught them the dance steps! Michael wanted to be the best and nothing could stop him. This obsession is also what prevented him from finding love.

That is to say?

Michael saw the marriage of Jermaine Jackson 5 break. he saw his brothers marry women, divorce, losing their money, not having time to think about music. It has a profound impact.

He wanted a family, but not with the bad?

No, he wanted a family like any other. Besides, he really thought it would work with Lisa Marie Presley when he married. Because they both came from the same universe. And just because he loved her. The problem is that he had spent his life doing only what he wanted, whenever he wanted. He did not make compromises, small sacrifices necessary when one wants a relationship work.

What was there in your family that it was not his?

We were not expecting anything from him. They loved him sincerely. For us it was Michael, not the "king of pop". With us he celebrated birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving dinner. With Jackson, it was always more complicated. There was a lot of jealousy in this family, especially from Jermaine to Michael. Jermaine has also created many problems by signing contracts for cans to make money. Each time a Jackson had a financial concern, it was Michael who paid.

How did he speak of his father Joe?

Their relationship was complex. This is someone he loved and respected, although it was very hard with him and his brothers. Michael has learned a lot from Joe, positive as negative elsewhere. With his children, he wanted to be just the opposite of his father. He kept saying "why Joe can not he be a father like the other? A grandfather like the others? ".

Have your relationships changed when Michael asked you to be his personal assistant, in the late 1990s?

Yes and no. What Michael wanted me, it was practical support in everyday life. If he needed new socks or cologne, I went to the store for him because his reputation prevented him. What he wanted too, it's taught me discipline, shapes me somehow. And sometimes it was very hard. I was the person closest to him and when he was angry, it's on me as it fell. I was his punching bag (laughs). At the beginning it was complicated. After a few months, we managed to separate work and friendship. But his speech was clear. He said a lot of people dream of being in your place. And have chosen you for a reason: I know you since you were a baby, I trust you ... And I know how you functioned!

His death has you she totally surprised?

It's hard to say. (He sighs). After the 2005 trial, he was very vulnerable and it is surrounded by horrible people like Raymone Bain, a woman who found herself at the head of the Michael Jackson Company. I saw many counselors parade in Michael's life. It was the worst. She has abused its weakness. In 2007, Michael landed with my parents without warning. It was in the hole and was helped back to work after all the dross that she did. At the time, it was totally clean, there was no doctor in his entourage. And had high expectations of the next chapter in his life. What has happened next? I think this is again surrounded by bad people. It has been handled and it was too lonely to distinguish. I did not hesitate to tell him when déconnait. And some people have done everything to get away from each other. People who would say "yes Mr. Jackson, Mr. Jackson of course." He became a checkbook. With me, there has been a great shouting matches. But he always remembered. Because it's the friendship is put it in front when needed.

Do you regret not having intervened in recent weeks?

I try not to think too much. (He pauses) Frank DiLeo, who had become his manager in 2009, wanted to get rid of Dr. Murray. He was beginning to understand what was going on around Michael. Frank had also suggested that I come work with him, for concerts scheduled in London ... If I had been there, maybe he would not have died.

Do you remember your last conversation with Michael?

Shortly before his death, on the phone. He was preparing to go to rehearsals and the concert he said "See you in London" ... This is the last time I talked to him.
 
The Lisa Marie part is kinda unfair because he doesn't mention the part where she denied MJ children that obviously was a big breakin point, if not the real reason why they ended it. Just makin MJ responsible is not right it takes two in a relationship to make it work and both had issues with eachothers ways which ended up in divorce.
 
A Frank's interview,I used the translate to read this.

http://www.metrofrance.com/culture/...-n-etait-pas-un-pedophile/mlfg!DCN0D9myjFWSY/

A bit of this:

''He wanted a family, but not with the bad?

No, he wanted a family like any other. Besides, he really thought it would work with Lisa Marie Presley when he married. Because they both came from the same universe. And just because he loved her. The problem is that he had spent his life doing only what he wanted, whenever he wanted. He did not make compromises, small sacrifices necessary when one wants a relationship work.''
Luckily Nic Cage doesn't have friend like this to criticize his short marriage with Lisa and blame it all on him lol
 
^I agree. Lisa had 5 engagements and 4 husbands in her life time. So clearly she is also to blame for her relationships not workin out! And it's crazy how some can't see that.
 
Karen Faye's recent tweets about Frank's book

b4erzd.jpg


2j3f7fp.jpg


hraed3.jpg



"People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones"

Right , Karen ? :rolleyes:
 
I read the book and it has nice parts, interesting info, you can see Michael as a human with ups and downs, but in the end it is a story seen throught a kid eyes, Frank will always see Michael from a kid perspective and Michael treated him like one...so there are parts, about the love life or job problems that are superficial described and also the issue with the drugs is something like "told you so", but this atitude is also a childish one...so the book should be viewed as a personal opinion, not an objective one...it is not a biography, but a life story seen by a friend...
 
A Frank's interview,I used the translate to read this.

http://www.metrofrance.com/culture/...-n-etait-pas-un-pedophile/mlfg!DCN0D9myjFWSY/

A bit of this:

''He wanted a family, but not with the bad?

No, he wanted a family like any other. Besides, he really thought it would work with Lisa Marie Presley when he married. Because they both came from the same universe. And just because he loved her. The problem is that he had spent his life doing only what he wanted, whenever he wanted. He did not make compromises, small sacrifices necessary when one wants a relationship work.''

STFU already Frank, Michael's confident my foot...pftt
 
Nathy MJ;3634478 said:
Here is the part of the book where Frank talks about it:

"In later years, Michael would explain to me that the cancellation of the tour had had nothing to do with drug addiction. It was because his next tour date was in Puerto Rico, on American soil, and if he had entered the United States at this time, there was a very real chance that he would have been arrested on the allegations of child molestation. To avoid his arrest, his team of handlers had to come up with a way to get him out of the rest of the tour. The only way to guarantee that the part of the tour that was canceled would be covered by insurance would be if Michael opted out because of a medical problem. So he told the world that he had a problem with prescription medicine. It was humiliating—another serious blow to his reputation—but he had no other viable choice."

So he does realize the drug addict stuff is not good for MJ's reputation, yet he was all over the place adding to that "serious blow". I guess a dead man's reputation isn't all that important anymore if you can make a few bucks.
 
I think Frank is a perfect candidate to talk about the allegations interms of saying MJ didn't do anything like that to him and never saw anything with other children aswell. But, when talk of other stuff like Lisa Marie comes up I think he should not comment. Talking like he was part of their marriage is just wrong and unfair. Besides he was a kid at the time and like I said would only be good in helping MJ with the allegations at the time cause he was a kid hanging with MJ aswell. But, that's about it.

And about the drugs thing... calling MJ a"situational drug addict" was not smart. Especailly if ur gonna say MJ told him that the only reason for rehab was to get out of touring but, not because he actually had an addiction at the time. o_O So like when did he become a "situational drug addict" according to Frank then? At what moment in his opinion was the moment and why? Cause the allegations was something huge and most believe that's when he relied on pain killers, not just for his scalp even though that is what it was for at first. So it's hard to just take alot of what Frank says and just say well it's what MJ told him
 
So he does realize the drug addict stuff is not good for MJ's reputation, yet he was all over the place adding to that "serious blow". I guess a dead man's reputation isn't all that important anymore if you can make a few bucks.

The bigger problem with this quote is that it's not true that he would have been arrested had he went back to the US and he really did have a drug problem at the time. Funny, how when MJ says he had a drug problem people say "no, he didn't, he just wanted to get out of something", but at other times they can't stop talking about what a drug addict he was.

I guess Elizabeth Taylor, Elton John, Dr. Beachamp Colclough are all liars, according to Frank Cascio. They all said Michael DID have a serious drug problem. Elton John said at the time that when he showed up he "looked like a zombie". And like I said, it's just simply not true Michael would have been arrested. There was no arrest warrant against him. And when he returned to the States in December, he wasn't arrested either. It was the tabloid media who tried to portray the whole thing as Michael running from the law. It's sad to see Frank lending support to tabloids in his book, when the facts tell otherwise.
 
So he does realize the drug addict stuff is not good for MJ's reputation, yet he was all over the place adding to that "serious blow". I guess a dead man's reputation isn't all that important anymore if you can make a few bucks.

There are some things in the book that I dont agree with .. but not this ..
FRank said MJ didnt have a problem with drugs at that time .But It was MJ himself said he did .. Franks explains he is defending MJs reputation .. But this may have been what MJ told him to ease his mind. Who knows. Frank was young at that time so maybe MJ was trying to spare him from the truth. Either way he is trying to defend MJ by saying that. The book isnt suppose to be a fairy Tale - Its suppose to be open and honest look at his relationship with Michael to the best he can rememeber. I dont think anything he say is sinister or meant to harm MJ in any way. Its just his experience.

People will alway question, so why not give the defense as Frank does for MJ. Michael is slandered on many issue in the media.. Those lies have been passed on for to long now and people start to believe them. Why not have someoen come out to defend MJ as frank has done. I know there are some things fans dont want to here - but His book is postivie and shows the human side of Michael . To me It show what a beautuful complex MAN he was. There are not many positive books out there. Someone need to write books to dispute the lies that hurt Michael's repuatation. other wise all people will get is the media and his detracters views and that will wnd up being Mjs legacy ..instead of the positive sweet human side of MJ. Is Franks book 100 % accuare ? Probably not.. but I dont think it's for sinister reasons, just that he doesnt know everythign 100% but just what he saw and heard which is not all sides. I feel this is a good book for Michael not a negative one .. Many fans have said it only makes them love him more and brings them closer to understanding him. So Im sure it will help the genearal public to see a different human side and also understand him better. Through Franks eyes. Not anyone elses.
 
Qbee the book can help MJ in some parts true like him defending MJ on the allegations. But, it's also fair to point out the stuff that doesn't and that cause more confusion. Like the whole 93 rehab stay and the reason for it. Frank contradicts what many said was a real addiction at the time and if he doesn't believe MJ had one at the time then when like I said did MJ become "a situational drug addict" according to Frank? What MAJOR thing in MJ life that can be bigger then the 93 allegations would make MJ turn to drugs? The second allegations in 2003? o_O

Also not everything Frank says in his book can be describe as "his own persepective." Cause claiming things that he says MJ told him is going beyond that.
 
Last edited:
With yet another round of legal trouble breaking out for Michael Jackson, one of the entertainer's doctors said in a statement released Monday that Jackson's condition is "greatly improved" but that his recovery from painkiller addiction will take six to eight weeks.
Dr. Beauchamp Colclough stated that Jackson is not "hiding out" and is not undergoing treatment for any condition other than drug addiction. Those statements apparently were made in response to searches by authorities attempting to determine if Jackson is undergoing any treatment to change his appearance.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-23/local/me-60019_1_michael-jackson

I once took Michael Jackson into the Kentucky Fried Chicken at Shepherd's Bush as he wanted to do something very normal. Amazingly, nobody noticed because nobody expects to see somebody like him in a place like that. He really enjoyed it.

When I first met Michael, I was very intimidated by the circle of people he had surrounding him. It was an entire organisation. But once I'd got past them and met Michael himself, it was fine. In the end, he was just a person to me. He responded to me wonderfully. We were together for about 31 days and we just went through a whole process together. It worked out all right. Just look at him. He looks good, he's married... he's lovely.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/My+Di...Colclough+-+I+once+took+Michael...-a060615250

I'm not sure how credible is this, but this describes Michael's rehab in detail, from someone who apparently was there: http://www.fanpop.com/spots/michael-jackson/articles/110337/title/michael-rehab-93

He makes some not too nice remarks about his appereance but otherwise it's OK.
 
Some said frank Cascio was honest in this book. How do you know he was honest When michael is not here to defend himself when frank Cascio is making profit from this book when the publisher also have a say on the book. Just a simple example If there is no evidence and trial, no prosecution to challenge conrad murray's words people will think Conrad Murray's police interview was honest, genuine and convincing. It's so clear the tabloid reports inspired murray a lot. I think even to this day Murray still believe what he said was the truth :no:. I am not comparing murray to Cascio here, just try to make a point. We don't know how much truth in their words Especially when it involved MONEY. I had hard time believe if Frank Cascio haven't promised the publisher something he would get this book deal. I don't understand how fans gave him a pass when cascio went on TV right before the jury deliberations called Michael a situational druggie, but when later answering fans questions he sided the fans and said Michael was not a drug addict. his publisher released his book excerpt to AP with full of sensational stories giving media a field day to slander Michael's name again And We had Roger Friedman highly praised this book( after his support of the Cascio songs and his the Cascios are the true heir of michael's estate) The public will only read what the media reported but only Michael's fans who had already knew his innocence will buy his book. At the end of day this book only helped Frank Cascio's pocket. But He cant even keep his words on donate a small potion to charities. I think he said somthing like all charities are fake, he hoped later work with MJ estate. Not to mention frank Cascio must have the super memory I certainly cant remember things 20 years ago, in his case he even remembered the words Michael told him:busted:
 
There are some things in the book that I dont agree with .. but not this ..
FRank said MJ didnt have a problem with drugs at that time .But It was MJ himself said he did .. Franks explains he is defending MJs reputation .. But this may have been what MJ told him to ease his mind. Who knows. Frank was young at that time so maybe MJ was trying to spare him from the truth. Either way he is trying to defend MJ by saying that. The book isnt suppose to be a fairy Tale - Its suppose to be open and honest look at his relationship with Michael to the best he can rememeber. I dont think anything he say is sinister or meant to harm MJ in any way. Its just his experience.

People will alway question, so why not give the defense as Frank does for MJ. Michael is slandered on many issue in the media.. Those lies have been passed on for to long now and people start to believe them. Why not have someoen come out to defend MJ as frank has done. I know there are some things fans dont want to here - but His book is postivie and shows the human side of Michael . To me It show what a beautuful complex MAN he was. There are not many positive books out there. Someone need to write books to dispute the lies that hurt Michael's repuatation. other wise all people will get is the media and his detracters views and that will wnd up being Mjs legacy ..instead of the positive sweet human side of MJ. Is Franks book 100 % accuare ? Probably not.. but I dont think it's for sinister reasons, just that he doesnt know everythign 100% but just what he saw and heard which is not all sides. I feel this is a good book for Michael not a negative one .. Many fans have said it only makes them love him more and brings them closer to understanding him. So Im sure it will help the genearal public to see a different human side and also understand him better. Through Franks eyes. Not anyone elses.

My point was that he says himself that the drug addict image was a "serious blow" to MJ's reputation (whether it was true or not, and I believe it was true), so why go around and add to it? Because no matter how we spin it, that's what he did. We may blame it on the media all we want, but he knew which part of the story they will focus on, yet he still went and did it. The general public isn't going to read the book, they will just hear/read what's in the media and that's just another blow to MJ, because they are quoting his close friend. Go and argue after that that he didn't mean an "addict" but a "situational addict". Whatever.

I'm sorry, I just can't make any excuses for this. He should've known better.
 
I think that friends can defend their friends without necessarily unveiling their secrets and without talking about things that ain't no their business like MJ's marriage with LMP.

If I were to defend my friends, am I going to talk about their personal affairs like responsibility in love life and getting stoned? What kind of defense is that coming from a friend?
 
^^ True.

"My best friend is the one who brings out the best of me" Henry Ford.
 
Wow...finally people are waking up to Frank Cascio's scheme. About damned time.
 
^^^^ Nope, I still feel the same way about it, not flawless (but what is) but overall I'm very glad it was written.
 
Me too Im glad it was written .. there is a lot of positive sweet and endearing stories about MJ.
 
yes, there are positives in the book, a lot of them. but i think it was also Frank's way of defending himself, like on the matter of why he and Michael were not so close anymore towards the end. and without necessarily clearly pointing the blame on Michael (well, he did say something about Michael's paranoia), he clearly implies it wasn't his fault, too. has Tom Mesereau cleared that up yet about Frank not wanting to testify in 05? i forget where i read things, but didn't Frank say he would ask TM to clear that up and say Frank was willing but was told not to testify? i did see a YT footage of him on TV, though, defending Michael.

anyway, i also couldn't help but sense an agenda when he shot down John McClain re the making of You Rock My World video. i think he mentioned that again in the French interview. what is the point? he had an issue with McClain when McClain supposedly wanted him out of Michael's org, but is that issue ongoing? is that even relevant to the book? he also delved lengthily on his 2 friends' contribution to reorganizing Michael's empire, ending with these guys suing Michael in the end because he didn't pay them. it's hard not to take some things with a grain of salt. i just have to wonder what Michael has to say about that, especially since i read somewhere that they were the guys who Michael went into the failed ticketing business with.

he's also very friendly with Shmuley. maybe nothing in that, i was just surprised.

and supposing what he said was true about Michael calling him to ask him to join him in Ireland and Raymone Bain calling a couple of days after telling him to stop harrassing Michael, and that he would be arrested if he sets foot in Ireland, what was he implying? i really didn't like the implication. i understand that no one person is perfect, but such stuff only adds to tabloid fodder. there are better truths he could tell, if that was true at all. let sleeping dogs lie. i can take both the good and the bad; i just think that if you loved someone, you wouldn't spill out secrets that the general public has no business knowing. it doesn't help anyone but him. certainly didn't help his friend.

that call from Michael when he was in Ireland supposedly happened in the spring of 2007 (page 302). didn't Frank know that Michael was already back in the US by then and even attended James Brown's funeral December of 06? how could he get his timeline wrong? well, not unless Michael went back to Ireland and nobody knew.
 
yes, there are positives in the book, a lot of them. but i think it was also Frank's way of defending himself, like on the matter of why he and Michael were not so close anymore towards the end. and without necessarily clearly pointing the blame on Michael (well, he did say something about Michael's paranoia), he clearly implies it wasn't his fault, too. has Tom Mesereau cleared that up yet about Frank not wanting to testify in 05? i forget where i read things, but didn't Frank say he would ask TM to clear that up and say Frank was willing but was told not to testify? i did see a YT footage of him on TV, though, defending Michael.

anyway, i also couldn't help but sense an agenda when he shot down John McClain re the making of You Rock My World video. i think he mentioned that again in the French interview. what is the point? he had an issue with McClain when McClain supposedly wanted him out of Michael's org, but is that issue ongoing? is that even relevant to the book? he also delved lengthily on his 2 friends' contribution to reorganizing Michael's empire, ending with these guys suing Michael in the end because he didn't pay them. it's hard not to take some things with a grain of salt. i just have to wonder what Michael has to say about that, especially since i read somewhere that they were the guys who Michael went into the failed ticketing business with.

he's also very friendly with Shmuley. maybe nothing in that, i was just surprised.

and supposing what he said was true about Michael calling him to ask him to join him in Ireland and Raymone Bain calling a couple of days after telling him to stop harrassing Michael, and that he would be arrested if he sets foot in Ireland, what was he implying? i really didn't like the implication. i understand that no one person is perfect, but such stuff only adds to tabloid fodder. there are better truths he could tell, if that was true at all. let sleeping dogs lie. i can take both the good and the bad; i just think that if you loved someone, you wouldn't spill out secrets that the general public has no business knowing. it doesn't help anyone but him. certainly didn't help his friend.

that call from Michael when he was in Ireland supposedly happened in the spring of 2007 (page 302). didn't Frank know that Michael was already back in the US by then and even attended James Brown's funeral December of 06? how could he get his timeline wrong? well, not unless Michael went back to Ireland and nobody knew.


You know, Michael was a human being. He certainly had flaws like all of us, it's no secret to anyone.
Even if I am a MJ's fan, I am completely open to the possibility that it wasn't necessarily Frank's fault. I have no problems admitting that Michael could have made some mistakes and what not. The only thing that bothers me is that it is made public. I think people's private lives should remain what it is -- private. It's not up to us to read or write books about personal aspects of people's lives and to judge them through our eyes.

I am not advocating not to write biographies or anecdotes and so on. On the contrary, I am glad that we can read those things. But, at the same time, it is just this feeling that maybe Michael didn't want others to know some of his privacy that disturbs me. And out of respect for Michael I still refuse to read that book. It's not a question of positivity or negativity, just a question of not wanting to peek into others' private spheres.

I must say that these days voyeurism is extremely popular: big brother, temptation island, and so on, and so on. I am sick of modern days voyeurism. Even the presidents are elected based on their private life (family, comformity, etc.) rather than on their political program and their capacity to make intelligent decisions.
 
Back
Top