Book: Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days / Review @pg8

[HIStory]

Yes it is true that Michael hired bodyguard's to protect him, but I still think when the paps weren't tipped off in LA, Michael wasn't always noticed.

David Nordahl the artist that I mentioned above stated this, too.

Surprise visit to Santa Fe

Nordahl grew close to all three. Typically, the artist spent time with the Jackson brood on the West Coast. But over Memorial Day weekend in 2004, the star and his tykes surprised Nordahl by visiting Santa Fe via Jackson's plush private bus (with a 60-inch plasma TV). Jackson suggested a movie outing.

"I thought we were going to a screening room," Nordahl says. "His driver pulled into DeVargas Mall. He was friends with (Roland Emmerich), the director of The Day After Tomorrow, and it was opening weekend. The mall was jammed, and there was no place to park. I took the kids, got the tickets and popcorn, and we went in. Michael came in after the lights went down.

"The lights came up, and nobody noticed him. He had on a baseball cap and these Chinese silk pajamas. The kids had no masks on. Any of those rags would have paid $100,000 for that picture."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-08-20-jackson-paintings_N.htm

Yep, nobody noticed the famous Michael Jackson at an opening weekend at a crowed mall in Santa Fe, New Mexico, movie theater!

None of this proves the BGs story is not true. In fact, this story is actually pretty similar to that of the BGs in that he and his kids enter the building seperately:

I took the kids, got the tickets and popcorn, and we went in. Michael came in after the lights went down.

From what Ivy wrote about this story:

They were in Chuck E cheese in Virginia (or somewhere like that - it's been a while that I read it so everything won't be exact). Apparently most of the time they made Michael and the kids enter separately to places. Javon enters with the kids and the kids start playing with other kids.

Whether there were occasions when MJ could go unnoticed and/or unbothered again does not prove that this story is false. Many times he did get noticed and he did get bothered. You can never really know in advance how a certain crowd would react, so I can see why MJ/Paris would rather be cautious if they realize someone noticed him.

It seems to me some people are just desperate to "prove" that each and every story in the book is a lie, which is IMO ridiculous because these guys did work for Michael so I expect that they do have some real stories about him. (And I'm saying that as someone who is not a fan of this book.)

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

Yeah I think both Michael and Lisa were surprised that the paps never picked up on them when they were dating. They said they had been all over the place and nobody noticed.

The tabs covered them dating a tiny bit, I remember they were on the cover of one in Feb '94 holding hands (never seen that pic again) mentioning they were on a date. Thats when I first learned about them being together, then there were pics in the NE around April looking at houses in Atlanta (I still have that issue) but other than that they ignored them, and pretended it was a total surprise when they got married. Sorry for going OT lol

 

[Warszawa320]

The tabs covered them dating a tiny bit, I remember they were on the cover of one in Feb '94 holding hands (never seen that pic again) mentioning they were on a date. Thats when I first learned about them being together, then there were pics in the NE around April looking at houses in Atlanta (I still have that issue) but other than that they ignored them, and pretended it was a total surprise when they got married. Sorry for going OT lol

You are absolutely right about it. I remember this like yesterday...

 

[Petrarose]

Alicat this: Then there was the artist that Michael visited in New Mexico and this artist talked about how nobody bothered Michael when he went to a movie and Michael didn't even disguise himself. Meaning...I think Michael could go out in public and people weren't always going to attack him. Randy Phillips testified about how Michael got so intoxicated before the Press conference, partly because he was afraid of the public's perception of him. You can even see how elated Michael was when he did go to the Press conference to announce his final Shows for the 02 Arena in July of 2009.

How come I did not see Michael looking 'elated." He was just his usual shy self and laughing because of all the love. You should read what Randy later said during cross about the same situation.

 

[Warszawa320]

These bodyguards aren't the first to say MJ would secretly meet women in hotels, Frank said this in '05, and Dieter said this in '07 as well.

And what about all the "hotel" motives in his videos.lol. And especially in Moonwalker's part of Smooth Criminal "strictly private". Maybe it wasn't "displayed" by an accident. I think he just liked to "do it" in the hotels...

 

[Petrarose]

^^Oh oh, I see your imagination is working too. I think the poor man just wanted privacy and somewhere quiet where he could be himself and wind down.

Anyone bought this book yet? What do other people think? Right now the only people commenting, except Ivy are those who have not read it.

 

[Warszawa320]

RF career has been built on trashing MJ. Before he started reporting on MJ in 1999, he was virtually unknown. When he started working for Fox in 1999/2000, he was given all the resources to haunt down MJ and trash him. the dude would write as many as 4 articles a week, literally trashing MJ at will. as other gossip sites were picking up his sensational articles, his ego would also grow significantly even surpassing his own body weight (RF was a fat rat).

But that ego proved to be his own downfall. So much that one day RF made the unthinkable mistake of trashing a Fox movie in 2008. Immediately Fox dumped his ass over a weekend. and since then he has never recovered. Today he's pretty much a shadow of his former self, and constantly mocked by other gossip dudes in the industry.

His so-called blog isn't getting much readership. people have forgotten about him and moved on to TMZ, E-Online, Radar Online and so on.

RF is just jealous of Zak from Forbes because Zak is getting a lot of adulation, even among fans. RF thinks he is the ultimate MJ connaisseur. so when someone else covers MJ at full length he rushes to show his bitterness. that's the extend of his insecurity.

You are so, so right about Friedman. Thank you very much.

 

[marebear]

This is why I am not comfortable with people writing about Michael and his business. It gets easily twisted around and then a lot of speculation. People say they want people to see who Michael was and what a good person he was. I get that but sometimes that gets lost for other things people want to focus on. But I am not going to tell anyone not to get the book or read it. It's up to that person what they decide to do.

 

[ivy]

Anyone bought this book yet? What do other people think? Right now the only people commenting, except Ivy are those who have not read it.

Book will be out this Tuesday. I'm tickled by people who are commenting on the book without reading it though.

 

[twinklEE]

the bodyguards did not work for him up until he died, that's a lie.

 

[Warszawa320]

Ivy, you have no clue if the Chuck E Cheese tale is fact or fiction and neither do I. We individually can decide if we want to accept it or not. I will maintain that a child has to be taught how to respond in certain situations and I believe Michael did not teach his children to deny him regardless of the situation. You are free to believe these authors and encourage others to purchase the book if you wish as I choose not to do either.

As for RF, I already stated that each reader is free to interpret these tales as they wish and he cannot be blamed for the tale these authors are telling. I had my own interpretation before RF’s article based on your summary as is evident in my previous posts in this thread. RF’s discussing anything about Michael for his own gain does not change the tale these authors tell. RF supports the Cascios and I am truly amazed and humored that one author was present for the recording of those tracks that I know for fact Michael did NOT record.

First of all you don't know for a fact that MJ did not record Cascio's songs. And please don't try to discuss it here because it is not the right forum for doing this. And IMO your biggest problem with bodyguards book is telling THE TRUTH about Michael's relationship with his family during this time and especially what Jacksons "interventions" were about. And we all could see how you were defending everything about Jacksons during AEG trial. Unfortunately for you this book shows very clearly that Jacksons were not truthful about "the interventions" and their relationship with Michael was really distant. Which most fans knew about but you always were trying to deny it and you still do.

 

[Petrarose]

Book will be out this Tuesday. I'm tickled by people who are commenting on the book without reading it though.

Oh thanks Ivy I must be mixing it up with another book. Didn't someone post above that they got their copy?

Warszawa I have not seen you posting much, but the little I see up there tells me you have a good handle on the facts. Oh I just checked and saw you are a new poster. You must have been auditing the forum before you joined. Is that true?

How about someone read this book when it comes out and then we will have 2 people's opinion.

 

[Ashtanga]

WOW! :busted: The discussion here is yielding. Scary. :bugeyed :fear:

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

Nobody other then Ivy has really read it? I was told the Kindle edition is out already.

 

[ivy]

the bodyguards did not work for him up until he died, that's a lie.

they state they were in Vegas and would go to London. I wrote in my review that the book mainly covers December 2006 to January 2009.

Nobody other then Ivy has really read it? I was told the Kindle edition is out already.

Gaz and Qbee has also read the early copy. Many other fan site owners / staff also had access to the early draft.

I have ordered the Kindle edition (to see the final released version), it's not available to me yet.

 

[AliCat]

Michael Jackson’s final days
Maclean’s reviews Remember the Time

Christopher Loudon
May 30, 2014

By Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard with Tanner Colby

“We both carried semiautomatic Glock pistols with extended magazines. We had Tasers. Each of them delivered a charge of 1.2 million volts, powerful enough to take down a 300-lb. man. We had a cache of backup weapons: MP5 fully automatic submachine guns, military-style AR-15s, 12-gauge automatic shotguns, and concealable MAC-10s.” Such, says Javon Beard, was the arsenal required to protect Michael Jackson. Apparently it took enough weaponry to flatten a village to safeguard a fawn of a man who espoused kindness and goodwill but, according to Beard’s co-sentry, Bill Whitfield, “trusted no one.”

In December 2006, Beard and Whitfield were hired to transport Jackson from McCarran Airport to his rented Las Vegas mansion. That one-night assignment became a full-time gig, continuing uninterrupted until the superstar’s death 2½ years later. Apart from Jackson’s three children, no one maintained closer access during his final years.

The narrative, shaped by Beard and Whitfield in alternating snippets, is heartfelt: their respect for Jackson as a boss and father, and their affection for his kids, sincere. Indeed, while seemingly everyone in Jackson’s life had their hands deep in his pockets, Beard and Whitfield remained steadfast even after months without a penny in salary. (Jackson’s finances were, they observed, a Gordian knot of loans and counter-loans involving tens of millions of dollars, a flurry of Peter-paying-Paul transactions to keep him a half-step ahead of endless lawsuits and creditors.)

Through most of the bodyguards’ tenure, Jackson remained professionally inactive, rarely leaving whatever house they were guarding. Still, the pair were front-row witnesses to the circus that was his life—estranged family members showing up at all hours, rabid fans parked on the sidewalk, Jackson’s crazy impulses and spending sprees, the tsunamic frenzies whenever he appeared in public. The emerging image is of a sweet and precocious but lonely man-child. Then, as he prepares for his never-realized comeback tour, Beard and Whitfield witness an astonishing transformation, realizing there are two Michael Jacksons: the fragile Peter Pan and the mighty King of Pop—dynamic, authoritative, fearless.

The million-dollar question—what really happened the night Jackson died in L.A.?—remains unanswered. Beard and Whitfield were stuck in Vegas. Yet such an anticlimax in no way diminishes what is a candid, intimate and remarkably sage appreciation of a tortured soul with everything and nothing.
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/michael-jacksons-bodyguards-recount-his-final-days/

 

[Tygger]

Not one poster here can prove the Friend/Flower tales as fact. If one does not know the tale to be fact, one cannot prove Friend/Flower were not professionals. It is a conclusion that was stated and discussed before the RF article. If RF can be blamed for his conclusion, then anyone discussing the same is accountable for their conclusion. No conclusion is incorrect as these tales are like any other about Michael (and other celebrities as well); enough detail is given to intrigue the reader yet, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions.

Assuming what the authors stated is fact and if Friend/Flower are professionals then, what is the issue? How does this tale not serve the purpose of somehow proving Michael was heterosexual beyond him actually stating such? Any adult, heterosexual relationship Michael had does not have to conform to the criteria of fans. Men and/or women being attracted to Michael has absolutely no bearing on anything Michael decided to do within his own private life.

Ivy, you can twist my words regarding the Chuck E Cheese story however you wish. The fact remains you believe one of Michael’s children would deny him depending on the situation and I do not. There is no comparison between adults denying Michael being the iconic Michael Jackson and Michael’s daughter denying Michael was her father.

RF support of the Cascios is relevant as it is a positive in his article. He stated one of the authors was present for the recording of the Cascio tracks that are on the Michael cd. You can see from his article yourself that he did not say the author witnessed the recording as you are suggesting. You have posted one of these authors knew Michael “was recording and in the basement studio but they had no direct information of what he was recording.” Cascio himself said what Michael recorded at that time in their home were what became known as the Cascio tracks that appeared on the Michael cd.

Warszawa320, I know for fact Michael did not record the Cascio tracks that appear on the Michael cd simply because I heard them. As for the rest of your post: I previously posted my issues with the cowardly act of these cowardly authors towards Michael and worst his children. Tsk tsk.

 

[AliCat]

Here's a live interview with Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard...

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/video/watch/24057877/michael-jacksons-bodyguards-tell-all/

They seemed to clarify a bit better about the two female friend's of Michael Jackson and I emphasize the word, friend. Yeah!

 

[AliCat]

Alicat this: Then there was the artist that Michael visited in New Mexico and this artist talked about how nobody bothered Michael when he went to a movie and Michael didn't even disguise himself. Meaning...I think Michael could go out in public and people weren't always going to attack him. Randy Phillips testified about how Michael got so intoxicated before the Press conference, partly because he was afraid of the public's perception of him. You can even see how elated Michael was when he did go to the Press conference to announce his final Shows for the 02 Arena in July of 2009.

How come I did not see Michael looking 'elated." He was just his usual shy self and laughing because of all the love. You should read what Randy later said during cross about the same situation.

You just have a different perspective than I do, that's all. Michael looked elated because of his fist pumps, for one. He felt empowered and that was good to see, the fan's at the press conference did make Michael Jackson ecstatically happy. Sorry you disagree with that assessment!

 

[qbee]

If you read the book, they never implied that friend or flower were professionals. Just aquantences/friends of Michael's. Women he seemed to care about. He was very protective about their identity even to the bodyguards. He seemed closer to the one named (Friend) spent more time with her seeing the sights and seen her on more than one occasion. There was nothing explicit or disrespectful stated. The story was very mild and innocent compared to what fans in here discuss in the MJ Manhood thread about Michael. They didn't speak about or treat him like an object when writing about him... They were very discreet on the topic of these women IMO.

 

[AliCat]

None of this proves the BGs story is not true. In fact, this story is actually pretty similar to that of the BGs in that he and his kids enter the building seperately:



From what Ivy wrote about this story:



Whether there were occasions when MJ could go unnoticed and/or unbothered again does not prove that this story is false. Many times he did get noticed and he did get bothered. You can never really know in advance how a certain crowd would react, so I can see why MJ/Paris would rather be cautious if they realize someone noticed him.

It seems to me some people are just desperate to "prove" that each and every story in the book is a lie, which is IMO ridiculous because these guys did work for Michael so I expect that they do have some real stories about him. (And I'm saying that as someone who is not a fan of this book.)

It's pretty obvious that you're either trying to lampoon or lambaste me. Too many poisonous choices. What's a girl to do?!

 

[HIStory]

It's pretty obvious that you're either trying to lampoon or lambaste me. Too many poisonous choices. What's a girl to do?!

No. I'm just trying to understand what your point is by citing FB popularity numbers, Colony Capital, Neverland etc. If how I understood it was not what you were trying to say then please feel free to correct it and make your point in a more direct manner.

And what's up with the witch and Snowhite picture? LOL.

 

[Warszawa320]

Here's a live interview with Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard...

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/video/watch/24057877/michael-jacksons-bodyguards-tell-all/

They seemed to clarify a bit better about the two female friend's of Michael Jackson and I emphasize the word, friend. Yeah!

AliCat, please don't be naive. Most fans , who really did follow MJ around the world know very well that he used to spend the time in the hotels with some ladies for not professional reasons.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, you can twist my words regarding the Chuck E Cheese story however you wish. The fact remains you believe one of Michael’s children would deny him depending on the situation and I do not.

Let me clarify something. I don't see it as "denying" Michael - your words not mine. and I believe Michael's kids being smart enough to understand the situation and react accordingly. So I do believe Michael's kids were smart enough to protect their father.

 

[Justthefacts]

AliCat, please don't be naive. Most fans , who really did follow MJ around the world know very well that he used to spend the time in the hotels with some ladies for not professional reasons.

I just don't understand why is this even a big deal? A single man spending time with a lady friend is only a big deal when the single man is Michael Jackson. Why?

 

[qbee]

Let me clarify something. I don't see it as "denying" Michael - your words not mine. and I believe Michael's kids being smart enough to understand the situation and react accordingly. So I do believe Michael's kids were smart enough to protect their father.

Exactly she was reacting in regards to what she was taught by her father. Not to reveal they were his children or who he was for all of their protection when out in public. It had nothing to do with denying her father.

 

[Warszawa320]

Not one poster here can prove the Friend/Flower tales as fact. If one does not know the tale to be fact, one cannot prove Friend/Flower were not professionals. It is a conclusion that was stated and discussed before the RF article. If RF can be blamed for his conclusion, then anyone discussing the same is accountable for their conclusion. No conclusion is incorrect as these tales are like any other about Michael (and other celebrities as well); enough detail is given to intrigue the reader yet, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions.

Assuming what the authors stated is fact and if Friend/Flower are professionals then, what is the issue? How does this tale not serve the purpose of somehow proving Michael was heterosexual beyond him actually stating such? Any adult, heterosexual relationship Michael had does not have to conform to the criteria of fans. Men and/or women being attracted to Michael has absolutely no bearing on anything Michael decided to do within his own private life.

Ivy, you can twist my words regarding the Chuck E Cheese story however you wish. The fact remains you believe one of Michael’s children would deny him depending on the situation and I do not. There is no comparison between adults denying Michael being the iconic Michael Jackson and Michael’s daughter denying Michael was her father.

RF support of the Cascios is relevant as it is a positive in his article. He stated one of the authors was present for the recording of the Cascio tracks that are on the Michael cd. You can see from his article yourself that he did not say the author witnessed the recording as you are suggesting. You have posted one of these authors knew Michael “was recording and in the basement studio but they had no direct information of what he was recording.” Cascio himself said what Michael recorded at that time in their home were what became known as the Cascio tracks that appeared on the Michael cd.

Warszawa320, I know for fact Michael did not record the Cascio tracks that appear on the Michael cd simply because I heard them. As for the rest of your post: I previously posted my issues with the cowardly act of these cowardly authors towards Michael and worst his children. Tsk tsk.

Tigger, nothing in your post is a fact. You are only able to express your opinion which most people on this forum don't agree with.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, it has been quite clear that I do not believe Michael’s daughter denied Michael was her father regardless of the situation and you do because these authors wrote it without any proof it happened. I also do not believe Michael taught her to react in that manner regardless of the situation. And?

The authors originated the tale of Michael's daughter reacting in that manner. They have also originated the tale of Flower/Friend and I suspect a book full of others. I am free to choose if I believe any of their tales particularly because the only person that can verify all of them has passed. Believe as you wish and I will continue to believe as I wish.

Warszawa320, tsk, tsk.

 

[ivy]

you do because these authors wrote it without any proof it happened.

No I don't believe it "because these authors wrote it". I believe it because it makes sense.

9 year olds aren't dumb and by all accounts Michael's kids are smart kids. Also these kids experienced public reaction to their father first hand and they lived with and knew many security measures surrounding them and their father including code names and so on.

So in a situation where a girl shouts out Michael's name and Michael runs out frantically to hide, I do not believe that Paris would respond with "yeah that's Michael Jackson my father" and send a mob after him - like you expect her to do.

I'll personally continue to believe Michael's kids were smart enough to understand the situation and protect their father - not "because the bodyguards wrote it", because I give Michael's kids credit of being smart and believing they would protect their father.

so yeah you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe but please stop twisting what I write and trying to put words in my mouth such as "denying their father" or "because bodyguards wrote it". That's not my words or my reasoning, that's your negative approach and passive aggressive way of trying to discredit other's opinions. While clearly your perceptions are negative towards this situation, my perceptions is all about love, being smart and being protective.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

Ivy, it has been quite clear that I do not believe Michael’s daughter denied Michael was her father regardless of the situation and you do because these authors wrote it without any proof it happened.

LoL, 99% of the time we don't have proof for anything people have claimed he's said or done, yet most of the time we take their word on it, why is this any different? I don't know why this specific situation is such a big deal to you.