Latest on MJJC

LMP; one more person to say Michael told her in 2005 who wanted to kill him for his catalogue

riviera1992

riviera1992

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,109
Points
0
Thanks to LMP on Oprah, MJ is in the headlines again portrayed as a drug addict molester. Un-freakin-believable. After all the work we've done to defend and restore Michael's legacy. Just when finally, the media hatred had subsided, with only a few mis-spoken words of ignorance from this nitwit, we're back to square one. Very frustrating.

But there's one good thing that came out of this interview.
She's one more person that MJ confided in about who wanted to kill him. He gave her names, (in 2005) but like all the others she's too chicken to spill the beans.
WTF! These people that Michael confided in, need to get together and compare names and tell us.

I don't care if there's a trial. The Murray trial is just a big show. IMO, these witnesses will never be called on the stand and nothing will be revealed.
Meanwhile, the trial is being posponed probably until the Statute of Limitation (not sure about murder case) runs out on the real murderers.


LMP
Part 3 @ 2:32 to 4:00
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=6033

Ireland Dr Patrick Treacy with Michael in 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2c3k9xb


La Toya
http://tinyurl.com/26uamkv


Teddy Riley says he thought Michael was a little paranoid back then (when? Invincible erra?) because he was telling him "so and so want me gone. If anything happens to me look to those people."
http://tinyurl.com/2f8sbxp


Dick Gregory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPeO5h03KI

Dieter Weisner 2000-2003?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HksYKAzyy0M&feature=player_embedded

Katherine Jackson (not sure if MJ gave names to his mom)
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96317

Any others?
 
Last edited:
But there's one good thing that came out of this interview.
She's one more person that MJ confided in about who wanted to kill him. He gave her names, but like all the others she's too chicken to spill the beans.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Rivera 1992.
But, I also believe that our fight is not merely on the physical plain.
Evil must be fought in both the physical and spiritual worlds,
and believe me the battle continues.
Pray, without ceasing. :angel:
 
what do you mean? i didn't think that!! She said that she never saw anything wrong with him and children!! Ofcourse she cannot put her hands on fire for him or anybody even a closed one! I believe he is innocent 1000% but if anyone asked me to bet my life on it i wouldn't! do you know what i mean?
 
^^ I said plenty on this subject in the other thread.

This post is about gathering info on Michael's closest confidents, together in one thread. Everybody who Michael told actual names of those plotting his murder prior to Murray entering the picture.
 
There is a similar thread about this is the conspiracy section. I will move this thread for you all to discuss.
 
She was probably too intoxicated herself to understand what he meant. The rest are too scared to say anything. I doubt we will ever know. Someone will probably whisper it somewhere 20 years from now.
 
It's obvious from the way she was talking about that she didn't take his words seriously. I hope she told those names to the police after Michael's passing.
 
JMie said:
It's obvious from the way she was talking about that she didn't take his words seriously. I hope she told those names to the police after Michael's passing.
Click to expand...
I bet she didn't....I could be very wrong though.
 
^^^ I think everybody who Michael confided in separately, thought he might be a little paranoid or didn't realised how serious the situation was.

But when you gather all these facts (pieces of the puzzle) together, then we can see the big picture. Michael was reaching out and nobody bothered to ask "what can I do to help?"

Now he's gone:(
 
She didn't and this will remain one of the greatest mysteries in entertainment history. These people will never step forward, nor will they allow themselves to be exposed for what they've done to this man. Corruption spreads deep, and unfortunately Michael isn't here to speak for himself, so the pieces are in place for this to remain secret.
 
I thought it was really interesting that she brought that up. It just didn't seem to fit into the rest of the interview, IMO. She didn't say that he was paranoid or anything at any point in the interview. Why would she bring that up if she wasn't wondering if Michael was right?
 
Everyone that surrounded him that was a part of the secret society wanted him kill when she spoke about when he called her in 2005 to tell her that and he said names etc. she can address on National TV they know all about her she knows that her life and family life will be in danger and Oprah knew better as well not to let her say any names
 
riviera1992 said:
Meanwhile, the trial is being posponed probably until the Statute of Limitation (not sure about murder case) runs out on the real murderers.
Click to expand...

First of all let me ease all of your minds about something.

If there's indeed a conspiracy which means that one or more people planned the murder Michael and later carried on this plan (by using Murray) then it will be a willing and premeditated murder - in other words it would be murder in the first degree.

There's no statue of limitations for murder in the first degree.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now when I hear this topic, I personally ask "which conspiracy are we talking about?" and let me explain what I mean.

Most of the people that you mention talk about "2005 and the trial" as the time of those talks and statements, some don't give any info about the time period.

The conspiracy theory during the 2005 trial time was all about Sony being behind the whole accusations and the trial to hurt Michael's career and his financial position so that he would be forced to sell the catalog.

The 2005 conspiracy didn't include several parties that we discuss in this times such as AEG (Phillips, Anshultz etc), Colony Capital (Barrack), Tohme, Dileo, Ortega etc.

So I'm confused, is the theory that the same conspiracy continued to 2009 with additional players involved?
 
ivy said:
First of all let me ease all of your minds about something.

If there's indeed a conspiracy which means that one or more people planned the murder Michael and later carried on this plan (by using Murray) then it will be a willing and premeditated murder - in other words it would be murder in the first degree.

There's no statue of limitations for murder in the first degree.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now when I hear this topic, I personally ask "which conspiracy are we talking about?" and let me explain what I mean.

Most of the people that you mention talk about "2005 and the trial" as the time of those talks and statements, some don't give any info about the time period.

The conspiracy theory during the 2005 trial time was all about Sony being behind the whole accusations and the trial to hurt Michael's career and his financial position so that he would be forced to sell the catalog.

The 2005 conspiracy didn't include several parties that we discuss in this times such as AEG (Phillips, Anshultz etc), Colony Capital (Barrack), Tohme, Dileo, Ortega etc.

So I'm confused, is the theory that the same conspiracy continued to 2009 with additional players involved?QUOTE]

Well, if those people that Michael gave names to, would compare names and somehow leak them to us either via anonymous letters sent to owners of MJ fan forums or would leak it through electronic means like Wikileaks, they'd still be safe but at least we'd have something to work with. Do our own research and connect the dots to wherever it may lead.
Click to expand...
 
Add Jermaine Jackson & Randy Jackson who both all said they know who those are involving a conspiracy against mike! Also Teddy Riley who said MJ told him who and why but, don't want to name names! Jermaine don't want to name them either! Ticks me off! They want us (The Jacksons) to believe he was killed on purpose yet, they don't give names!? No one does...They are afraid of something...? Getting sued for defamation? Or something much worse?!

By the way, Off topic but, don't care! I have to say it! I would bet my life on MJ innocence! Simply because the facts would back me up! Pity Lisa who calims she loved/loves him and clearly always worried about what other think (that's one of the factors why it never worked out!) couldn't do the same!

She even said in the past that people would tell her what's wrong with her? That she seem pretty normal to them and that's why they couldn't understand her relationship with him! And she agreed with them! o_O SMH So to me she is selfish! She would 't defend him in any serious matter if it made her look bad!
 
Thanks Riviera for starting this thread. A list of people repeating the same words by Michael is very important to keep an eye on. I don't understand why, after so many attempts for this truth to be heard, media keep insisting on the drugs story instead of digging deeper into Michael's own words.

Ivy, for those of us who believe there is a conspiracy, what we have witnessed happening in 2009 is just a sequel to the 2005 Sony conspiracy.
Speaking for myself, my views here depend on my personal culture, convictions, and wider view of society. To me, institutions do not work as they are supposed to, there is no substantial control, and the rules of market and commodification seem to become a global trend at the expense of human values and rights.
I don't think any conglomerate would ever give up on a lucrative plan to aquire a very significant asset, in this case the MJ commodity.
After 3 consequent failures (1993 allegations, Invincible fiasco, 2005 trial) they simply had to take the back seat and allow someone else to grab the wheel.
I firmly believe that some entities wanted Michael out of the equation. His estate is of huge value, he is the most recognizable brand worldwide therefore he can generate millions, and there are people bound to make big money now that he is gone. Whether this is right or wrong, according to his wishes or not, this remains to be seen over time.
I also believe that people involved (Tohme, Dileo, Ortega, Phillips, Murray) will start talking about what they actually knew towards the end of their lives? As a confession before they leave this world? That's probably our best shot at learning the whole story. Meanwhile, justice will work in its own fragmental, minimal, and detached way, however this will not change the fact that Michael was killed, that the world lost one of the greats, that generations will no longer benefit from his artistic and humanitarian contribution. There were forces and factors contributing to this end, and Michael is already being blamed himself even more than the doctor that was supposed to be looking after him and who will get away with a slap on the wrist.
 
Maria MJ said:
Ivy, for those of us who believe there is a conspiracy, what we have witnessed happening in 2009 is just a sequel to the 2005 Sony conspiracy.
Click to expand...

thank you so much for the wonderful explanation to my question.

bluetopez said:
Add Jermaine Jackson & Randy Jackson who both all said they know who those are involving a conspiracy against mike! Also Teddy Riley who said MJ told him who and why but, don't want to name names! Jermaine don't want to name them either! Ticks me off! They want us (The Jacksons) to believe he was killed on purpose yet, they don't give names!? No one does...They are afraid of something...? Getting sued for defamation?
Click to expand...

defamation, definitely. and let me clarify.

most opinions are protected under freedom of speech. for a simple example anyone can hate anyone and say that they are not good people and can say that they are entitled to their opinion under freedom of speech. and it would be really hard to show any defamation.

however claiming criminal acts is like an automatic defamation. Criminal acts are a serious thing and saying a person committed a criminal act shouldn't be taken lightly. such statements are seen so bad and heinous that it's considered an automatic defamation - you don't even need to show actual damages.

so in other words if you accuse someone of a criminal act, they can easily sue you for defamation and would most probably win the lawsuit simply because of the nature of such accusation.

(- pay attention to any TV news show when they are talking about a person charged with a crime - even then they will still use to word "allegedly" - )

so unless anyone can prove a criminal act without a doubt in a courtroom, they wouldn't be giving names if they do not want to be sued for defamation.

an example to clarify

for example about a politician saying that they are not sincere, they don't care about the public, they are bad for the community, they only think about themselves, they caused public lose jobs with their politic decisions etc are all opinions and freedom of speech even though they might be negative statements. the politician cannot sue and win on the basis of defamation.

however saying that a politician takes money from the campaign fund for their personal use is an accusation of criminal act (embezzlement) and the politician can sue and win the defamation case (unless the accuser can prove embezzlement without reasonable doubt).
 
Ivy, what I don't understand is this is exactly what happened to Michael: people accusing him of criminal acts. So how come he didn't turned around and sue all these people for defamation?
 
riviera1992 said:
Ivy, what I don't understand is this is exactly what happened to Michael: people accusing him of criminal acts. So how come he didn't turned around and sue all these people for defamation?
Click to expand...

you are asking about the molestation accusations, right?

Those people didn't directly go to the media and made those claims. They went to the lawyers and the police in the pursuit of a criminal and/or civil lawsuit. Therefore they are legitimate step for a trial and not defamation.

example: Katherine is suing AEG claiming they were responsible in Michael's death. That's a legitimate action and not defamation. Then it becomes if there's enough probable cause for a trial and if they are guilty or innocent.
 
^^^ Oh, ok, I get it. I think.

Is it safe to say then that, if all these people that Michael confided in would get together and compare names and come up with , let say 3 names exactly the same, could they all sue these 3 named people for Michael's murder if a judge thought the case was viable?:scratch:
 
riviera1992 said:
^^^ Oh, ok, I get it. I think.

Is it safe to say then that, if all these people that Michael confided in would get together and compare names and come up with , let say 3 names exactly the same, could they all sue these 3 named people for Michael's murder if a judge thought the case was viable?:scratch:
Click to expand...

If they have any information (even just the names) they should have told it to the LAPD and DA. If LAPD and DA could find enough evidence they could sue those parties for criminal charges - side note: as Murray is the only one charged I think that they either do not have such info or any credible evidence to pursue such claims (of course we don't know what might be uncovered in the future).

any civil case can be brought by Katherine, MJ's kids and the estate (and perhaps Joe if he can establish that he was a dependent of Michael). so yes if they have any viable case they can certainly pursue it in a court of law such as the case against AEG.
 
However, they can repeat what was told to them. For example they can say Michael Jackson said Joe Doe was going to steal his ABC. Then it is not deflimation. Here is a good web site that names some of the names involved and who is conected to whom.

http://themichaeljacksontruth-michaeljackson.blogspot.com/

I would start at the begining, and read through it. Its one of the only sites I have found that connect Colony to Sony.
 
MJsForalltime said:
However, they can repeat what was told to them. For example they can say Michael Jackson said Joe Doe was going to steal his ABC. Then it is not deflimation.
Click to expand...

actually they can't do that.

one rule of defamation is loss of reputation due to a "public" negative statement , Michael never publicly named anyone.

However if they now tell the names, they would be the ones that's making a private conversation public, hence publicly defaming people and they will be the ones responsible for defamation.

an example

let say that I think Mary has done several bad things, I discuss this with you in private. There's no defamation as only two of us know these accusations, Mary's reputation is not affected as the conversation is private. Mary cannot lose reputation if no one has no idea what she's being accused to do.

If you publish our talk in your blog by referring to me, even though I might be the source you'll be the responsible one as you published it and made it public and portrayed Mary in a bad light and caused her lose reputation.
 
So it's like the defamation suit that DR won recently.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2010/03/jacksons-ex-debbie-rowe-wins-defamation-suit.html

I still can't wrap my mind around why Michael couldn't/wouldn't sue all those people who defamed him after he was found innocent of all charges/accusations. It seems that in this world, Michael is treated with different rules than the rest of the world.

Dr Treacy won't tell because he thinks he might be called as a witness. If he hasn't been called by now, I don't think he will.

I wonder if the DA knows how many people Michael had told names too?
Ivy, like you said, they should've all come forward and told the DA by now but, if they haven't, can the DA sub-pena let say LMP and Teddy Riley to appear in court?

But since only Murray was charged, it's probably because the DA can't or won't make a case against powerful corporations that give money to his campaign.

So, it brings me back to my previous post; the info NEEDS to be leaked via anonymous letters to us or the likes of Wikileaks. IMO, the truth will never be revealed via official channels because the culprits are so powerful, they control everything.

Let me suggest also that if LMP is sincere in wanting Michael's forgiveness and still feel guilt over letting him down, she could make it her mission for this truth to come to life. She has the power to make this happen. Anonimously of course. *wink*
 
Last edited:
riviera1992 said:
So it's like the defamation suit that DR won recently.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2010/03/jacksons-ex-debbie-rowe-wins-defamation-suit.html
Click to expand...

right. here the defamation is portraying Debbie as only interested in monetary gain. apparently those emails were fakes.


I still can't wrap my mind around why Michael couldn't/wouldn't sue all those people who defamed him after he was found innocent of all charges/accusations. It seems that in this world, Michael is treated with different rules than the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Like I said those were statements given to cops and court testimonies. It's not like they sat down with tabloids and told their stories. For example several witnesses also portrayed the Arvizo's as con artists , they didn't sue for defamation either because it's protected court testimony.


Dr Treacy won't tell because he thinks he might be called as a witness. If he hasn't been called by now, I don't think he will.
Click to expand...

Well if he's saying that he might be a witness, I would expect LAPD, DA has interviewed him and/or asked for medical records from him. (or Murray's lawyers contacted him). If nobody contacted him, it would be very far fetched to say that he can be called as a witness.

I wonder if the DA knows how many people Michael had told names too? Ivy, like you said, they should've all come forward and told the DA by now but, if they haven't, can the DA sub-pena let say LMP and Teddy Riley to appear in court?
Click to expand...

yes DA can subpoena them even for a deposition (pre trial discovery). I believe that Jackson's has already told the DA what they know or heard from those people.

But since only Murray was charged, it's probably because the DA can't or won't make a case against powerful corporations that give money to his campaign.
Click to expand...

it's not only about whether they know the names or not. It's also about if there's any evidence to support it. remember you need "without reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. similarly leaking of the names won't make a huge difference (fans already examine anyone and everyone), it's all about evidence and proof in a court case.
 
Randy and most of the Jacksons have twitters !! why not to ask them to ask LMP to give some names and they give it to the fans so with the help of the internet especially blogs, we can make difference...

Nowadays,Blogs, Wikileaks and twitter are used against governments why not against these people ! this will be more useful to MJ and his kids instead of fake sunflowers stories !
 
Michael didn't only tell her that there were people who wanna kill him but also that she was right about some of the people around him.
So maybe we should check who was around Michael back in 94/95/96 until his death?
I don't know if this makes sense.
 
Justice_MJ said:
Michael didn't only tell her that there were people who wanna kill him but also that she was right about some of the people around him.
So maybe we should check who was around Michael back in 94/95/96 until his death?
I don't know if this makes sense.
Click to expand...

Definately!

Also, if you listen closely to what Teddy Riley says in that interview with E; when the interviewer asked him something like "former business associates? Which they are many."
TR responds "ya..and people he let go, stuff like that".

Where's Michael's ennemy list?

We need to find who was working for him when LMP was around and that he fired later and listed as ennemy. There's many of them too.
huhwhaaa.gif


Has anybody here read Dick Gregory's book? Is there stuff and/or clues about who wanted to harm Michael in there?


We could also put together a Muckety relationship map like this one I made on another forum on another subject.
[Here's something interesting about Fortress Hedgefund
Their principals are Peter L. Briger Jr., Fredric B. Garonzik and Michael E. Novogratz Goldman Sachs partners, plus Wesley R. Edens, Robert I. Kauffman, Randal A. Nardone.

Check that relationship map here (put mouse over lines) and you'll see that Fortress is basically just another branch of Goldman Sacks.

http://www.muckety.com/3B04B94A55111A13DB8AAD132183A090.map ]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top