Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson Re: Channel 5 Autopsy Program

[ChrisC]

No, the concern is the way in which the details will be presented.
The show's description suggests that this is not going to be done in an honest and fair way.

Who are you saying 'no' to? You agree with me. I have/had that concern too. Unfortunately though I'm not happy with 'suggestion'. If I followed the 'suggested' route, I'd have a completely different opinion of Michael Jackson as an artist and person. MJ fans always seem like expert investigators, not satisfied with what they're told, they dig deep to the source and the facts and come up with their own opinions.

Does it really matter if it's honest or not? If there is truth or untruth? In my mind, one question stands above it all: would Michael want me, his fan, or any of us watch his autopsy, discuss and dissect its details? The answer to it is the answer to this programme. Even if it's perfectly honest and unbiased, showing it and watching it as an entertainment is in my book an act of disrespect to the person who is loved and admired.

Television can function as an educator. Television has the ability to inform and is instrumental in our recent evolution as humans. It's not merely an entertainer.

To the documentary itself, it was at times a very difficult watch, people have already commented in this thread as to the way the information was presented and slanted to present a particular, mostly negative, view. But I was delighted with a good number of the facts presented as well. Ultimately, I felt as though the 'last hours' were very pro-Murray and seemed to suggest that the prosecution case hinged on the theory that propofol would be present in the upper tube of Murray's makeshift drip. They stated that it wasn't and that the jury ignored it, following it with a baying mob of fervent MJ fans screaming 'burn in hell' and the likes as if they had some kind of influence on the jury's decision. This was hugely frustrating and completely misleading, frankly idiotic. And that's just ONE of the awful devices they used to manipulate the audience.

The whole thing felt very amateurishly put together. Why go to the bother of finding such a great lookalike of Murray and then use pictures of Jermaine mistakenly thinking it's Michael and then spell Michael's name wrong on screen, showing it as 'Micheal'. LOLZ. Idiots.

 

[Bubs]

Exactly! It's quite obvious that he would have used such a bleaching solution to even out his skin tone and for them to still insinuate that he was trying to become white is just ignorant! :mat:

I honestly hope people who says that MJ bleached his skin to become white, that they get some sort of skin disease or big mole in the middle of their face. Most certainly they would try to do something to remove/cover it, but MJ is not allowed to do what millions of people do daily - trying to improve his look :no:

 

[LastTear]

I haven't watched it, I don't know if I will watch on demand or not, but a friend said they repeatedly used Jermaines images when showing how Michaels appearence has changed, is that correct?

 

[Ferrari]

I haven't watched it, I don't know if I will watch on demand or not, but a friend said they repeatedly used Jermaines images when showing how Michaels appearence has changed, is that correct?

That's another good point, I noticed that too, they did use Jermaine's image a couple of times from the Jackson 5 era -_-

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ So they can't even identify Michael but this programme is supposed to tell us the truth all about him! My friend can identify Michael versus Jermaine and she is not even a big fan.

 

[Ferrari]

^^ Exactly, it just goes to show what a load of rubbish it really is when they can't even get the photos right. :blink:

 

[HIStory]

The other thing he said was that mj's nose had caved in on one side and the 'bridge was missing'. What's a nose bridge? the middle part? - that's not in the report so where on earth did he get that from?

There is no such thing in the autopsy. Here is what it writes about the nose. The media can keep on harping on the "missing nose" narrative all they want but it's just not confirmed by his autopsy. There was a bandage on his nose, that's all, but one would expect it would have been noted if his nose was missing.

 

[myosotis]

Alot of the rest of the prog was just rehashing the drug issues, apparently mj was addicted to pain killers ever since the pepsi, and addicted to prop the last 10yrs of his life. They did mention the pepsi accident at length and showed the munich bridge incident so did show the pain issues mj had, but what incensed me was the repeating of the claim that demoral = medical/pharmalogical version of heroin?! I've never come across that before. I'm thinking that in their disappointment in not finding any evidence of hard illegal drug taking by mj, they're trying to push that this painkiller is like heroin.

I looked up Demerol on a Meds site and it said this: so it doesn't sound pharmacologically related to heroin, only 'having similar qualities'.

Meperidine hydrochloride is a narcotic analgesic with multiple actions qualitatively similar to those of morphine; the most prominent of these involve the central nervous system and organs composed of smooth muscle. The principal actions of therapeutic value are analgesia and sedation.

http://www.rxlist.com/demerol-drug/clinical-pharmacology.htm

Heroin = (diacetylmorphine or morphine diacetate (INN)) or diamorphine

Anther site said this:
The isolation of morphine was the beginning of alkaloid chemistry, which has yielded many important medicinal substances. Although a satisfactory theory of analgesic structure or action still eludes us, experimenters have developed a number of synthetic analgesics related to morphine. The oldest is pethidine (also known as meperidine, Demerol and about 40 other names). It was synthesised in 1939 by the German chemist Otto Eisleb. It is less potent than morphine, but is still widely used for the relief of post-operative pain.

http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/mim/drugs/html/morphine_text.htm

 

[Bubs]

There is no such thing in the autopsy. Here is what it writes about the nose. The media can keep on harping on the "missing nose" narrative all they want but it's just not confirmed by his autopsy. There was a bandage on his nose, that's all, but one would expect it would have been noted if his nose was missing.

I didn't watch the program but by the comments here they were heavily relying on CM's LAPD interview.
They could have read CM's interview with UK rag Daily mail, in which he said:
‘Michael had a prosthetic piece of plastic which he taped to his nose. I would help him tape it down. We had no secrets."

So people who read autopsy report saw it mentioned tape, then read CM's interview and came to conclusion that it was a tape that used hold prosthetic nose in place.

The more I read and hear what they say and how they reach their conclusions about Michael, the more I think they should look the man in the mirror who they call w...o.

This is exactly the way how the myths of Michael got the wings in tabloids. Fiction is presented in nice form, and along the way it is accepted as fact :no:

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I was thinking if Columbia has sold premium rights to Channel 5 as they showed TII movie previously, and then Channel 5 has comprehensive right to use footage in other programs in their channel?

I'm thinking that. The estate certainly wdn't be giving any permission for anything, didn't hear any mj music or see any videos on that prog - apart from tii extracts it was just stock news footage, talking heads and out of focus lookalikies. Maybe columbia or whoever said if you want to use extracts in your dumb doc, then you have to show the whole doc primetime - so as a result tii got 1.18m on xmas day.

Ultimately, I felt as though the 'last hours' were very pro-Murray and seemed to suggest that the prosecution case hinged on the theory that propofol would be present in the upper tube of Murray's makeshift drip. They stated that it wasn't and that the jury ignored it.

Yes, this ticked me off too. No wonder british people (from comments i see in online media sites) see murray as some type of scapegoat. No mention of those 17 grossly negligent breaches of care, the continual changes in his story, the hiding of the propofol in mj's bedroom and refusal to disclose it's use on 25 june meaning it was likely murray stole that upper tube, the impossibility of mj doing any of this self-injecting and that hour spent on the phone at the crucial time. They presented murray's version of events as a valid alternative theory as if there had been no jury verdict, yet in the end they did say the autopsy supported the jury's verdict but then just mentioned the lack of monitoring equipment,so it was all really unsatisfactory.

And that's just ONE of the awful devices they used to manipulate the audience.

The 'awful device' that most ticked me off was during their talk of mj's debt, which i thought was perfectly valid to explain his need to do tii, they showed a newspaper headline of 'mj paid off 24 boys to stop them talking' ie that's how mj got into debt. Seriously that fbi story has entered into folklore, i'd have far, far rather the estate had contacted the mirror gp of papers to make their views known on that gross slur than bothering about this doc.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I looked up Demerol on a Meds site and it said this: so it doesn't sound pharmacologically related to heroin, only 'having similar qualities'.

Thanks, myosotis, i guess that's enough for the prog makers to go around suggesting mj was a type of heroin substitute addict. I remember they mentioned he used morphine too - they must have found his song about it.

My impression was that these doc makers decided to do a series on celeb autopsies and chose mj thinking it would be really sensational, and to their disappointment well into their research on all the usual tabloid issues, they discovered from dr shepherd that the actual autopsy didn't reveal anything sensational. So they were forced to put a negative spin on the issues. So they had to mention the vitiligo which removed pigment from parts of his skin, but still suggested that despite telling oprah he didn't bleach his skin, shock horror mj did bleach parts of his skin, not giving the obvious explanation of why he had to do this. Also the only dependence to drugs they cd find was to pres pain killers, so they sexed it up by saying demoral was like heroin. And of course no mj doc can go by without mention of a deep dark secret about mj that has now been exposed. In the doc they said the big secret the autopsy uncovered was that mj wore a wig.

 

[LastTear]

I'm thinking that. The estate certainly wdn't be giving any permission for anything, didn't hear any mj music or see any videos on that prog - apart from tii extracts it was just stock news footage, talking heads and out of focus lookalikies. Maybe columbia or whoever said if you want to use extracts in your dumb doc, then you have to show the whole doc primetime - so as a result tii got 1.18m on xmas day.


Yes, this ticked me off too. No wonder british people (from comments i see in online media sites) see murray as some type of scapegoat. No mention of those 17 grossly negligent breaches of care, the continual changes in his story, the hiding of the propofol in mj's bedroom and refusal to disclose it's use on 25 june meaning it was likely murray stole that upper tube, the impossibility of mj doing any of this self-injecting and that hour spent on the phone at the crucial time. They presented murray's version of events as a valid alternative theory as if there had been no jury verdict, yet in the end they did say the autopsy supported the jury's verdict but then just mentioned the lack of monitoring equipment,so it was all really unsatisfactory.


The 'awful device' that most ticked me off was during their talk of mj's debt, which i thought was perfectly valid to explain his need to do tii, they showed a newspaper headline of 'mj paid off 24 boys to stop them talking' ie that's how mj got into debt. Seriously that fbi story has entered into folklore, i'd have far, far rather the estate had contacted the mirror gp of papers to make their views known on that gross slur than bothering about this doc.

The bolded was counted by medical experts and yet I understand this programme based Michaels last hours on Murray's account of what happened? I don't know why I keep being surprised by these snippets when the programme included the likes of Pfeiffer, Halperin etc.

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202673962121017 A fan calls Channel 5, worth listening, he serves the receiver


A question, are they going to show the actual autopsy of MJ laying there?

This man made my day..no lie! He sounds really upset though, and one more thing..do you know if he's from Australia?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I haven't watched it, I don't know if I will watch on demand or not, but a friend said they repeatedly used Jermaines images when showing how Michaels appearence has changed, is that correct?

Do you have to watch it last tear? As has been pointed out, watching it ondemand will add to its ratings. Its honestly not worth it, i think the posters on here have covered most of the things that can be complained about.

Yes, they did show jermaine, i cdn't have been paying attention as i just saw this random pic of jerms and thought they were just showing how one of his sibs looked who hadn't had plastic surgery, didn't realise they thought it was mj.

The bolded was counted by medical experts and yet I understand this programme based Michaels last hours on Murray's account of what happened?

Yes they did, the prog makers didn't seem to realise that murray had changed his story timeline about what happened on the 25 june. The prog did go through the drip theory though, i just felt they shd have made it clearer that this theory matched the facts of the autopsy and crime scene rather than murray's fictional account.

 

[LastTear]

@Bonnie Blue To be honest I have read enough since that first post to know that there is absolutely no reason for me to watch it, there is enough detail around to lodge any complaint. Plus I think my blood pressure will thank me not to. And yes you are absolutely right, on demand runs through the wifi so they would most likely know how many people are watching.

Did they explain what was happening to Michaels body in the last hours or just Murray's actions? I was surprised to read abt the reenactment when I thought the basis of this was to show more of a medical side, ie what happens to the body? (Sorry can't think of a more gentle way of asking that)

 

[myosotis]

They didn't refer to the court arguments about how various meds are metabolised...is that what you meant?

They said that benzos make the lungs inflate more slowly, so it is harder to oxygenate the body......

They did incidentally show Murray performing CPR on the bed, but then they had to show that, because they played the phone call when the medic / operator says 'Move him on to the floor'.

Also they mentioned the flumanezil (? sp) being given by CM to reverse the benzos...but that there is no med to reverse propofol effects.

In the reconstruction, MJ went from 'not sleeping' to 'sleeping' to 'not breathing' as narrated according to the voiceover.


PS I gather that CH 5 are showing the programme again on Sunday 12th Jan at 2300hrs.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

There is no such thing in the autopsy. Here is what it writes about the nose. The media can keep on harping on the "missing nose" narrative all they want but it's just not confirmed by his autopsy. There was a bandage on his nose, that's all, but one would expect it would have been noted if his nose was missing.

Yes, there's another ref to the nose earlier on when it says there are scars at the lateral border of the right alae nasi and on the left alae nasi. However, i googled nose bridge and it seems to be the top bit of the nose between the eyes and apparently shepherd says it was missing?? Haven't a clue where he got that from, there are some words and arrows relating to diagrams of the head that i can't read, but it's odd noone else has ever mentioned this. Sullivan et al's stories of the missing nose, refers to the whole nose or the tip, this is a whole new area of the nose that now seems to be 'missing'. Smh.

Did they explain what was happening to Michaels body in the last hours or just Murray's actions? I was surprised to read abt the reenactment when I thought the basis of this was to show more of a medical side, ie what happens to the body? (Sorry can't think of a more gentle way of asking that)

You mean like all those csi type effects to show the inside of the body? - not really, they had a few for eg showing what arthritis does to the spine and showing the effects of mj's suppressed breathing from the benzos on his heart. But that's about it i think, it was mainly talking us through the drugs murray gave mj and the timings whilst showing the out of focus lookalikies. The actual 'last hours' of mj was only a segment of the prog, there were long segments on drugs and on tii and how mj was struggling with rehearsals, they had the aeg 'trouble at front' emails for example. The programme suggested that mj's 'good rehearsals' on 23 and 24 were only possible because he was being given stimulants to cope, which of course made it more difficult for him to sleep. Shepherd mentioned endrophine (sp?) found in mj's urine to make that claim.

 

[myosotis]

^ Yes, that was the ephedrine from the ECA tabs ( Caffeine, aspirin and ephedrine)...Didn't Murray have them made up especially...I don't think they mentioned that.

 

[MIST]

^ Yes, that was the ephedrine from the ECA tabs ( Caffeine, aspirin and ephedrine)...Didn't Murray have them made up especially...I don't think they mentioned that.

I think it was for Murray, to help him stay awake.

 

[HIStory]

Yes, there's another ref to the nose earlier on when it says there are scars at the lateral border of the right alae nasi and on the left alae nasi. However, i googled nose bridge and it seems to be the top bit of the nose between the eyes and apparently shepherd says it was missing?? Haven't a clue where he got that from, there are some words and arrows relating to diagrams of the head that i can't read, but it's odd noone else has ever mentioned this. Sullivan et al's stories of the missing nose, refers to the whole nose or the tip, this is a whole new area of the nose that now seems to be 'missing'. Smh.

To me it seems there nothing relating to the nose there either apart from the scars at the side of it. Otherwise the arrows seem to point to the eyes, ear and mouth signaling the tatoos. There's nothing about a missing nose.

 

[MJRemixer]

I heard the film had This Is It footage and Michael's music. So if the Estate was so against it then why did they grant them the rights to use those? Or if they didn't then they should sue them on that basis.

This Is It Premiered on Channel 5 on Christmas Day so maybe they had rights to use the film already.

 

[Gaz]

Clearly they have used the this it footage without permission. There was not any of Michael's music used which was obviously for copyright/permission reasons, my question is why was it not the same for TII footage.

 

[LastTear]

When they showed TII, Michael rehearsing I understand, was his music not being played? We ought to make sure the estate knows what was used.

 

[dam2040]

Michael Jackson's nose was not missing people, come on. Sometimes I wonder if some us believe some of the tabloid trash.

 

[jamba]

What specifically did he do to make his skin go from a light brown to ghostly white around '90-'91? I used to know exactly but I've forgotten the specifics...

EDIT: Found exactly what he used. In case any of you are interested as well...

"When there were more white patches than his normal skin color and the daily chore of hours of makeup became cumbersome, MJ was given the choice of depigmenting his skin so that the color would even out.

The bleaching or depigmentation of the skin was carried out under the supervision of his dermatologist. 20% monobenzylether of hydroquinone was used for this purpose. This chemical causes a permanent and irreversible loss of skin pigment and produces a chalk-white color.

The absence of the melanin pigment makes the skin more prone for sun burns, hence Michael Jackson had to wear long sleeves and hat, and, at times, cover his face when he went outdoors." [Source]

Can you provide the source/link for this quote, HIStoric? Thanks.

Whoops, I see it's already there when you click on 'Source"--sorry.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Exactly. And I believe Shepard released an E-mail to a fan, which was then posted on here, stating he never said such a thing in the coroners report and that Michael did in fact have a nose. If it wasn't him, it was another one of the docs who performed the autopsy..

I don't even know why this is being suggested, here of all places

 

[GreenEyes]

I just watched it. It's nothing to be bothered about. This will quickly be forgotten.

Anyway...

The only thing useful I saw in this was the doctor explaining why he thought Michael's lungs were so bad, and they were really bad. I'm sure that's why he had to resort to a large part of the History tour lipsyncing. But the doctor believes Michael's heavily scared lungs were a result of years of battling Lupus. He explained that the Lupus actually makes the body fight against and attack the lungs. Poor guy.

And a big eye roll on the guy who played Michael. Couldn't they have picked someone better than that? That wig he had on was ridiculous.

And interviewing James Desborough. This idiot who was partly responsible for spreading those fake FBI files and more lurid British tabloid junk pieces. Give me a break! He couldn't be more unreliable. Wasn't he even arrested in the News of the World scandal??

 

[HIStory]

Exactly. And I believe Shepard released an E-mail to a fan, which was then posted on here, stating he never said such a thing in the coroners report and that Michael did in fact have a nose. If it wasn't him, it was another one of the docs who performed the autopsy..

I don't even know why this is being suggested, here of all places

Suggested? In fact, it is refuted, not suggested. It is discussed and refuted because it was claimed in this program.

Michael Jackson's nose was not missing people, come on. Sometimes I wonder if some us believe some of the tabloid trash.

No one said they believe it.

 

[HIStory]

I just watched it. It's nothing to be bothered about. This will quickly be forgotten.

Anyway...

The only thing useful I saw in this was the doctor explaining why he thought Michael's lungs were so bad, and they were really bad. I'm sure that's why he had to resort to a large part of the History tour lipsyncing. But the doctor believes Michael's heavily scared lungs were a result of years of battling Lupus. He explained that the Lupus actually makes the body fight against and attack the lungs. Poor guy.

.

I don't know how bad they said it was because I didn't watch it, but the autopsy clearly states it was not a life threatening condition.

 

[GreenEyes]

I don't know how bad they said it was because I didn't watch it, but the autopsy clearly states it was not a life threatening condition.

No not life threatening... but most certainly, affecting the quality of his life. If my memory serves me right, it states on his autopsy how negatively that would have affected him. That kind of heavy scaring would have been very hard to cope with if you wanted to lead a normal, active life.