Latest on MJJC

Janet Jackson on Dateline - Sunday, Feb.13th

kristinaz said:
I'm going to step in and defend Janet here and I'm prob going to get my head bitten off but I'm used to it. First off I'll say this no I didn't catch the whole thing but I did see alot of the clips leading up to tonight and when she says she didn't really grieve I think I get what she means. See what happened with me when my grandpa died was I was not at all affected didn't shed a tear for months then finally one day I snapped and released all the pressure I had been keeping in. She makes sense when she said she wanted to be strong for everyone else. She herself said she was lost at the memorial service and she didn't want to speak afterwards at the Nokia centre like she did. As for why she's touring what is she going to do sit at home for the rest of her life she has to get on with it. Alright fair enough there's a trial but what difference will Janet's presence make? I'd be different if Michael were still here but honestly what sister wants to hear the horrific details of her brother's death? Anyways end of rant now go ahead and rip my post to death but I've said my two cents.
Click to expand...

I totally agree about everyone grieving differently. My mother and her mother were extremely close, and when my grandmother died, I thought my mother would fall apart, but she didn't. I never even saw her cry. Then, several months later, Mother's Day rolled around, and she wailed and cried for a week. She was totally inconsolable. It tore me apart just seeing her like that, and I realized she had been holding it together earlier to get through it all and to help us get through it.
 
Originally Posted by sophie
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...meds-mystery-0

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60362068.html

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/143...-lawsuit.jhtml
Click to expand...

I thank you for sharing this information. :agree:

Seems that Macchi realized his name had been hijacked when he stumbled across a prescription in Jackson's refrigerator with his name on it. Then Macchi got a printout from the local pharmacy of other scrips issued in his name and carrying Jackson's Pacific Coast Highway address. In his lawsuit, Macchi alleges that Jackson and Elizondo--acting in concert with two doctors--used his name so that the couple wouldn't be connected to the embarrassing prescriptions (and we're not talking about that Claritin or Retin-A). The duo surely was more preoccupied with the Recombivax, Zoloft, Revia, Zovirax, Pondimin, and Effexor.
Click to expand...
:
 
sophie said:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/janet-jackson-meds-mystery-0

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60362068.html

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1430402/update-janet-jackson-faces-divorce-drug-lawsuit.jhtml
Click to expand...
girl was hooked herself, talking about denial, though she is the one who has been in denial about everything since the past 2 plus years.
the biggest slap for her is that after everything she has done these past 2 and half decades she still hasnt managed to grow out of michaels shadow LMAO!
Also talking about how she lost Michael as a brother during thriller.. well I supposed her running away and marrying a druggie on the sly played a huge part in loosing him. SMDH This woman, is just too much. !
 
I remember in Michael's book Moonwalk that I think his brothers told him that Janet got married? I found they were doing some comparisons. For example, Janet's 1993 vs Michael's. What she says about Joe and then they show Michael telling Oprah. She said she hated her smile and I remember hearing Michael say that somewhere too.

As for losing him as a brother after Thriller, he was always her brother. It just their careers and paths took them away from each other. I find Janet distances herself from her family and does her own thing. Michael did that and people think something was wrong with him.
 
marebear said:
I remember in Michael's book Moonwalk that I think his brothers told him that Janet got married? I found they were doing some comparisons. For example, Janet's 1993 vs Michael's. What she says about Joe and then they show Michael telling Oprah. She said she hated her smile and I remember hearing Michael say that somewhere too.

As for losing him as a brother after Thriller, he was always her brother. It just their careers and paths took them away from each other. I find Janet distances herself from her family and does her own thing. Michael did that and people think something was wrong with him.
Click to expand...

What career did she have in 1982 again?
 
max000 said:
So sad that Janet no longer has the power to set ground rules for an interview. The Jacksons interviews are too damn predictable. I get really embarass for them and cannot sit through the interview.
Click to expand...

Isn't it embarrassing? They have no fucking power. I've seen plenty of times where Lisa Marie was able to dictate that she didn't want to talk about MJ or certain things about her father. 40 years in the industry and they're this powerless? I personally don't get why they don't talk more with the Ebonys, Jets, Steve Harveys etc. Where's the strategy?
 
AngieJ said:
Isn't it embarrassing? They have no fucking power. I've seen plenty of times where Lisa Marie was able to dictate that she didn't want to talk about MJ or certain things about her father. 40 years in the industry and they're this powerless? I personally don't get why they don't talk more with the Ebonys, Jets, Steve Harveys etc. Where's the strategy?
Click to expand...
It is embarrassing!

The cloak has been lifted and it ain't pretty, in my opinion.

To the folks in the industry they're NOT Royalty. To the folks in the industry they're a joke!
 
I think they do have the authority to say what they will talk about, they just don't exercise it. For instance, I finally watched the Oprah's making of for the Katherine Jackson interview. Oprah and her team talked about not mentioning certain things out of respect for a grieving mother. Yet, according to the show, it was Katherine that said she would talk about anything, that it would be no holds barred.

We were angry at Oprah for bringing up the molestation charges, and for talking about his surgery, etc. But Katherine said it was ok to talk about those things. If you let someone walk all over you, especially if they have their own agenda, they will gladly oblige you.

They could say we are not going to talk about this or that or they could set a limit on how much time they spend on a subject. But them seem to think it is in their best interests to be an open book about nothing but MJ. It's been said again and again, atht they need to become a cohesive unit and they really need to put their foot down. They first have to respect themselves and each other and then people will be more inclined to follow suit.
 
ginvid said:
I think they do have the authority to say what they will talk about, they just don't exercise it. For instance, I finally watched the Oprah's making of for the Katherine Jackson interview. Oprah and her team talked about not mentioning certain things out of respect for a grieving mother. Yet, according to the show, it was Katherine that said she would talk about anything, that it would be no holds barred.

We were angry at Oprah for bringing up the molestation charges, and for talking about his surgery, etc. But Katherine said it was ok to talk about those things. If you let someone walk all over you, especially if they have their own agenda, they will gladly oblige you.

They could say we are not going to talk about this or that or they could set a limit on how much time they spend on a subject. But them seem to think it is in their best interests to be an open book about nothing but MJ. It's been said again and again, atht they need to become a cohesive unit and they really need to put their foot down. They first have to respect themselves and each other and then people will be more inclined to follow suit.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, ALL OF THE LITTLE MONEY GRABS have caused "some" of them to go crazy regarding how they have conducted themselves lately.

It's like, "I'll say anything you want, I'll do anything you want, just give me the MONEY!"

It makes me sad that after all of these years, they don't conduct themselves with more decorum. They CONTINUE to act like they just fell off the back of a TURNIP TRUCK, in my opinion.
 
ginvid said:
I think they do have the authority to say what they will talk about, they just don't exercise it. For instance, I finally watched the Oprah's making of for the Katherine Jackson interview. Oprah and her team talked about not mentioning certain things out of respect for a grieving mother. Yet, according to the show, it was Katherine that said she would talk about anything, that it would be no holds barred.

We were angry at Oprah for bringing up the molestation charges, and for talking about his surgery, etc. But Katherine said it was ok to talk about those things. If you let someone walk all over you, especially if they have their own agenda, they will gladly oblige you.

They could say we are not going to talk about this or that or they could set a limit on how much time they spend on a subject. But them seem to think it is in their best interests to be an open book about nothing but MJ. It's been said again and again, atht they need to become a cohesive unit and they really need to put their foot down. They first have to respect themselves and each other and then people will be more inclined to follow suit.
Click to expand...

None of it makes any sense to me. They don't look at the Kennedys and Presleys and don't see that something is wrong here? I mean, hello, Elvis's ex-wife fights for him, but a big ass family like them don't for MJ? I just don't get it. Especially when they're trying to make some money. Who's going to go anywhere near anything they put out?
 
Last edited:
AngieJ said:
None of it makes any sense to me. They don't look at the Kennedys and Presleys and don't see that something is wrong here? I mean, hello, Elvis's ex-wife fights for him, but a big ass family like them don't for MJ? I just don't get it. Especially when they're trying to make some money. Who's going to go anywhere near anything they put out?
Click to expand...
That's the thing that really gets me.

Are they really living under a rock and don't know what's going on in the REAL WORLD!

They want and NEED the support of Michael's fans, in order for any of their projects to be even "remotely" successful. Do they not realize that we see and hear them and "most" of us are not willing to support them and that includes Katherine's deal with Howard Mann.

They can't be that dense, or are they?
 
I saw some of it. I didn't think it was that bad. The only addict reference I heard was a voiceover by Meredith that seemed contrived for her to throw in there. And they did mention that his death was a homicide, something the public seems to forget.
Surprised at her talking about Joe. I thought in her words, he was just old school. Now she's admitting he was an abuser?
Did anybody else feel some kind of way hearing him talk, hearing his voice again? It also made me want to cry. What I wouldn't give to see a new picture of him with some zebra striped high waters on, beat-up old penny loafers, white socks and a Spiderman mask on. I'd be like Well, things are back to normal!
 
Big Apple2 said:
In my opinion, ALL OF THE LITTLE MONEY GRABS have caused "some" of them to go crazy regarding how they have conducted themselves lately.

It's like, "I'll say anything you want, I'll do anything you want, just give me the MONEY!"

It makes me sad that after all of these years, they don't conduct themselves with more decorum. They CONTINUE to act like they just fell off the back of a TURNIP TRUCK, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Like Michael said about his siblings, they love cameras and the limelight.
They would jump on anything, any second. If anybody said "I want to interview you tomorrow about Michael's new style of dress" "Sure". Cause they just want to be on tv, to be ont tv.
Click to expand...
 
Saw the interview last night and not like we were surprised, Michael was used to anchor this interview. Wonder what would've happened if Janet had drawn out the 'no Michael questions rule?' and for such a big book, are you telling me that the whole interview could'nt have been about the contents of the book?
 
Well, only 5.2 Mil people saw Michael being referred to as a drug addict.

Thank Goodness...Dateline/NBC was the least watched channel last night.

That was also more than enough to give CBS an easy win on Sunday night. Fox was a distant second averaging a 2.3 rating in the 18-49 demo (4.5 million viewers overall) from 7-10 p.m. with mostly new episodes of its Sunday-night animation lineup. ABC was third (2.0, 7.4 million from 7-11 p.m.) with originals of "America's Funniest Home Videos" (1.8, 7.7 million), "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (1.6, 6.4 million), "Desperate Housewives" (2.6, 9.1 million) and "Brothers & Sisters" (1.8, 6.3 million). Those numbers mark series lows for "Desperate" and "Brothers & Sisters."


NBC was fourth with an anemic 0.9 rating and 4.7 million viewers with Dateline from 7-9 p.m. (1.1, 5.2 million) and back-to-back reruns of Harry's Law at 9 p.m. (0.8, 4.6 million) and 10 p.m. (0.6, 3.9 million).

The Grammys also may have juiced tune-in for CBS News' "60 Minutes," which featured Anderson Cooper interviewing Grammy-winning Lady Gaga. The show won the 7 p.m. hour in the demo and among total viewers, notching a 2.1 rating with 12.2 million viewers overall.
Click to expand...

http://www.billboard.com/#/news/grammys-score-most-watched-telecast-in-10-1005034972.story
 
marebear said:
You think he will ask her about Michael? I don't know what he thinks of Michael.
Click to expand...

Sweetie, that's a question that we need not ask anymore, he will discuss Michael for sure. Hopefully, any reference to Michael will display the 'human being' and not the media creation.

Did'nt Piers Morgan interview MJ a few years back when he was editor of The Mirror? correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I wonder when she's going to start talking about how her brother couldn't sleep or suffered from insomnia...how he liked to "channel" at night or was a night owl. Since they were so close and all....surely, she was aware while living in the Encino house.

Does no one find it odd how most of Michael's family seem to not address the sleeping issue. They want to talk about drugs, interventions, fake songs, fake wills, the biology of his kids, his teasing habits and toothpick nose, EVERYTHING under the sun but almost NONE of them have mentioned a peep about Michael's sleeping habits...the "alleged" reason behind his demise.

Am I the only one who finds this odd...even suspicious now after a whole year has passed? It's almost like they want to pretend Michael's sleeping problems did not exist. And I'm starting to wonder WHY...beyond the idea that they may only focus on drugs as a crutch excuse to explain MJ's distance and lack of interest in touring with them.

I would love to see some of these hosts ask Janet about what she knows of Michael's sleeping probs. in the past. She had to know about it at Encino. I know of at least a couple of instances where LaToya mentioned it in the 80's. But NOW...we got nothing but crickets on the subject.

Interesting.
 
Wendy,

I find that odd too.. None of them have mentioned his sleeping problems at all. His own mother hasn't even mentioned it. Something is wrong there.
 
ExoticPrincess said:
Sweetie, that's a question that we need not ask anymore, he will discuss Michael for sure. Hopefully, any reference to Michael will display the 'human being' and not the media creation.

Did'nt Piers Morgan interview MJ a few years back when he was editor of The Mirror? correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I never heard him until he took over for Larry King.
 
ExoticPrincess said:
Sweetie, that's a question that we need not ask anymore, he will discuss Michael for sure. Hopefully, any reference to Michael will display the 'human being' and not the media creation.

Did'nt Piers Morgan interview MJ a few years back when he was editor of The Mirror? correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Yep he interviewed him in 1999.

Some excerpts:
"His frankness shocked me. This was not a glib, girlish monosyllabic character hiding behind the famous mask and make-up. This was an intelligent, articulate and mature man. And a man who very clearly bears the emotional scars of a terrible humiliation based on alleged crimes he says he could never commit."

"He speaks confidently and intelligently, admittedly with a liberal sprinkling of the lovey-dovey outpourings you'd expect from him. He was happy to talk about any issue I raised, and shirked no questions I threw at him. Most people I know have a pretty dim view of Jackson the man, while remaining massive fans of his music. I came away from this encounter feeling I may have misjudged the man, that Michael Jackson is not such a w**** after all."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top