One more thing, just something that's been nagging me while reading through this thread the last few days. As mentioned before, those clothes are a part of history. Musical history, Entertainment history. Like any other relic of historical relevance, such things are treated with care, people barely touch these things out of an effort to preserve it's historical value, some of these things are handled with gloves and in controlled environments, because it's valuable and again, it's history. You don't see people walking around wearing Princess Diana's old dresses that she once wore, because it decreases the value, such things are preserved for a reason. And nearly everyone believe's things should be preserved that way. So why now, is it okay for an artist you prefer, to wear such historical things, like his Grammy Jacket, to a red carpet appearance, or his tour outfits (not just his sweaters, but the things he performed in, like the Workin' Day And Night jumpers) to studio sessions? She's right in that that you can feel things from someones old clothes, such as the fragrance they wore. With exactly that said, wouldn't that be more suitable for Michael's kids to wear? She says she gave one of his sweaters to Michael's god son...His god son, who the H E double hockey sticks is that? As famous as she is she couldn't seek the three of his kids and give majority of the sweaters and "stuff she put off to the side" to his children? WHAT?! While she may be doing some things right, keeping his clothes in controlled temperature closets and stuff, there's also a lot of ways she's going about this wrong.
Such things like this have been brought up in the past, remember how everyone raged against Arnold Klein for wanting a Jacket that Michael wore, that Klein once gave to him. Nobody wanted him in possession of that jacket, we surely didn't want him showing up in photo's wearing it. But when it's someone we prefer, things are all cool and okay. I'm willing to bet the reactions would be so different if this was Chris Brown, who's also an avid MJ fan.
But in the end, my point is, factually, taking such actions with historical objects ruins the value minute by minute, according to many historians, archaeologists, etc. So why is this any different?