Latest on MJJC

Brooke Sheild.s-book/ Excerpts in People-Magazine

I like her - and I think she cared a lot about MJ !
 
^^I like Brooke too, but I am not swayed by that.

So there is a list that shows some supported Michael, but that does not mean the majority did not abandon him. The list only shows some supported him and his abandonment was not 100%.

Then Brooks states that he always call when something major happens in her life, but she does not claim that she calls when something major happens in his life, so it seems it was Michael who was initiating the contact, if what Brooke says is true.

We have a statement from Brooke in 93 & in 04 saying she supports him and that she spoke to him in 03, so we believe Brooke but when Michael claim he could name his friends on one hand we don't believe that. We believe Brooke, but we don't believe what Grace said about people not calling back. Basically all this shows me is that we believe whom ever we choose to believe, based on our own subjective feelings about the truthfulness of the parties concerned.

I guess Michael was incorrect in what he said to Delio too when he came to the courthouse.
 
Petrarose said:
Then Brooks states that he always call when something major happens in her life, but she does not claim that she calls when something major happens in his life, so it seems it was Michael who was initiating the contact, if what Brooke says is true.
Click to expand...

she mentioned not being able to reach to him (after 2005). If she wasn't calling him she wouldn't have any problems of not reaching him.

We have a statement from Brooke in 93 & in 04 saying she supports him and that she spoke to him in 03, so we believe Brooke but when Michael claim he could name his friends on one hand we don't believe that. We believe Brooke, but we don't believe what Grace said about people not calling back. Basically all this shows me is that we believe whom ever we choose to believe, based on our own subjective feelings about the truthfulness of the parties concerned.
Click to expand...

It's not "either - or" like you portray. I believe Grace, Michael etc that some even majority of his friends have abandoned him but it doesn't mean or prove that Brooke was one of them. Here it is presented that Brooke twice supported him publicly. That cannot be denied. Similarly I do believe that Michael's close friends were very few but there's also several different levels of friendship. Brooke herself stated that due to life they weren't as close as before and they weren't seeing each other and their only interaction was phone calls. So by Brooke's own description, they weren't close friends in the later years but that doesn't mean they weren't casual friends. (I have my best friends that I talk almost every day and I have my high school friends who I see once a year. Both are friends but at different levels). Michael's statements about Brooke to the Rabbi shows that he didn't feel negatively about her.

Nobody is expected to like Brooke but honestly I don't get the sudden "oh she abandoned him" claims with no basis. Her two public SUPPORT statements are more than some people ever did.
 
I don't see how it's believing Brooke over Mike or Grace. As to subjective feelings, I'd say the reverse is true as well -- believing the worst of someone. Sure, there's no doubt some folks abandoned MJ but I just don't see Brooke as one of them, that's all.
 
krikzil said:
I don't see how it's believing Brooke over Mike or Grace. As to subjective feelings, I'd say the reverse is true as well -- believing the worst of someone. Sure, there's no doubt some folks abandoned MJ but I just don't see Brooke as one of them, that's all.
Click to expand...

Some fans thrive on negativity. That's all I will say about that.
 
ivy said:
she mentioned not being able to reach to him (after 2005). If she wasn't calling him she wouldn't have any problems of not reaching him.



It's not "either - or" like you portray. I believe Grace, Michael etc that some even majority of his friends have abandoned him but it doesn't mean or prove that Brooke was one of them. Here it is presented that Brooke twice supported him publicly. That cannot be denied. Similarly I do believe that Michael's close friends were very few but there's also several different levels of friendship. Brooke herself stated that due to life they weren't as close as before and they weren't seeing each other and their only interaction was phone calls. So by Brooke's own description, they weren't close friends in the later years but that doesn't mean they weren't casual friends. (I have my best friends that I talk almost every day and I have my high school friends who I see once a year. Both are friends but at different levels). Michael's statements about Brooke to the Rabbi shows that he didn't feel negatively about her.

Nobody is expected to like Brooke but honestly I don't get the sudden "oh she abandoned him" claims with no basis. Her two public SUPPORT statements are more than some people ever did.
Click to expand...

Ok i get the one where she couldn't reach him. Sounds ligit. However, my point is we choose who we want to believe in the Brooke/Michael relationship. She makes 2 statements which we believe, but we don't believe Michael's statements. Yes there are different levels of relationships; we all know that. She is speaking from the point of view of someone who was closely connected to him, so by that she is implying they had a close relationship. She made 2 public statements which supported him and he still claims he could name his friends on one hand, so what does that mean? Fans also supported him, and yet he did not say he had millions of supporters which makes you think that support meant something else to Michael Jackson, like showing up when I am down. True her 2 public support statements are more than some people did. Yet I still like Brooke, but I am not going to believe everything she says since Michael claims something else. My main problem with her is that she is perpetuating the persona of Michael as a man terrified of intimate relationships & sex.

---

And about the comment that some fans thrive on negative, well negativity is saying Michael was terrified and believing in it and condoning it. Terrified is not a positive word.
 
Petrarose said:
We have a statement from Brooke in 93 & in 04 saying she supports him and that she spoke to him in 03, so we believe Brooke but when Michael claim he could name his friends on one hand we don't believe that. We believe Brooke, but we don't believe what Grace said about people not calling back. Basically all this shows me is that we believe whom ever we choose to believe, based on our own subjective feelings about the truthfulness of the parties concerned.
Click to expand...

I believe Michael when he said he sincerely liked Brooke years after the allegations happened. I believe Michael when he spoke fondly of Brooke every time he was asked about her. I guess he should have consulted you first so he would know he should actually be really upset with Brooke for "abandoning" him in his time of need.
 
LindavG said:
I believe Michael when he said he sincerely liked Brooke years after the allegations happened. I believe Michael when he spoke fondly of Brooke every time he was asked about her. I guess he should have consulted you first so he would know he should actually be really upset with Brooke for "abandoning" him in his time of need.
Click to expand...

Ha ok very funny. You gave me a laugh and I thank you for it.
 
Petrarose said:
She makes 2 statements which we believe, but we don't believe Michael's statements.
Click to expand...

again not true - at least for me. I believe them both.


he still claims he could name his friends on one hand, so what does that mean?
Click to expand...

and how can you know for certain whether he included Brooke on that "friends on one hand" or not? Aren't you also choosing to believe what you want to believe? I don't remember Michael ever saying "these are my true friends" or "These are the people that abandoned me". Every classification that fans do as a friend or abandoning is their own perceptions. So everyone - including you - would be guilty of that. So that means at the end we are all left with our individual perceptions.
 
I've never heard Brooke make negative comments about MJ so Brooke is ok with me. I don't know if she was "there" for him when he needed her. All I know is she has always publically respected him so that's good enough for me.
 
It seems all of you are guilty of the same thing, the ones defending Brooke. She issued those statements, defending him, indeed more than many of his other "friends" did, I give her that but you don't have any proof if she really tried to reach him other than choosing to believe what she said. Elizabeth was constantly sick in her seventies but she made the effort to be in touch with Michael as much as her health permitted it. If the bodyguards were truthful in their statements, they don't mention her contacting or trying to.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
It seems all of you are guilty of the same thing, the ones defending Brooke.
Click to expand...

Let's not turn this into a "guilt" thing. I could easily call you "guilty" for not even bothering to check if she ever showed public support towards Michael. You accused her of not showing support when it was false.But yes "guilt" aside, everyone is posting based on their perceptions.

I give her that but you don't have any proof if she really tried to reach him other than choosing to believe what she said.
Click to expand...

And you don't have any proof that she didn't try to reach to him other than your assumption. see? this is a two way street, that we probably shouldn't be continuing.


If the bodyguards were truthful in their statements, they don't mention her contacting or trying to.
Click to expand...

and how does that contradict what she says? she mentioned Michael calling her at least around 2003 - 2005 and then she mentioned people that worked for Michael changing, leaving etc and she couldn't reach to him. So she put her last contact around 2005. Later on, after trial when a lot of older staff members were no longer working for Michael, he didn't have a manager, accountant or a constant lawyer. This is the time that new bodyguards were becoming his assistants. How would she know those bodyguards? and like I said she didn't claim to be in contact with him during that time period.

So again nothing being said here is contradicting what she said. she did admit that they weren't as close in the later years, they weren't seeing each other and their contact was limited to phone calls at major life events. she didn't portray herself as his best and closest friend. she did support him against allegations and Michael never said anything negative about her. So I personally don't think Michael had any issues with her.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
It seems all of you are guilty of the same thing, the ones defending Brooke. She issued those statements, defending him, indeed more than many of his other "friends" did, I give her that but you don't have any proof if she really tried to reach him other than choosing to believe what she said. Elizabeth was constantly sick in her seventies but she made the effort to be in touch with Michael as much as her health permitted it. If the bodyguards were truthful in their statements, they don't mention her contacting or trying to.
Click to expand...

And you have no proof she didn't, other than choosing to believe she's not telling the truth. Round and round we go.

Brooke herself mentioned the difficulties in getting in touch with him. Not sure why that seems so unbelievable given the fact he was out of touch and out of the country for years, and then rather nomadic yes, during the years with the BGs.
 
You're both falling into the same pattern as well, assuming. You don't know for sure if he really had issues or not with her in the last years. You aren't certain she was telling the truth or not other than choosing to believe her. I on the other hand remain skeptical neither I believe she's truthful nor I'm certain she was lying until there is a proof.
 
Actually I do believe she was telling the truth. I see no reason or discrepancy to believe otherwise.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
It seems all of you are guilty of the same thing, the ones defending Brooke. She issued those statements, defending him, indeed more than many of his other "friends" did, I give her that but you don't have any proof if she really tried to reach him other than choosing to believe what she said. Elizabeth was constantly sick in her seventies but she made the effort to be in touch with Michael as much as her health permitted it. If the bodyguards were truthful in their statements, they don't mention her contacting or trying to.
Click to expand...

^^That's it. None of us have proof of what Brooke did but only her word for it. That is why I don't understand why everyone believes in Brooke's statements about the relationship, but not Michael's. What is it about Michael that make you think what Brooke is saying is true and what he is saying is not.

About this support, yes Brooke made a statement 2 times and also said she could not get him. Yes she did more than many did. However, some situations call for physical support and that was what Michael needed.

Ivy ok I will agree that the friends on one hand could be Brooke too, but I doubt it. True I have no proof that she is not one of the friends on the "one" hand. I think it would include Elizabeth & 4 people he could count on.
 
Last edited:
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
You're both falling into the same pattern as well, assuming. You don't know for sure if he really had issues or not with her in the last years.
Click to expand...

Well I already wrote "everyone is posting based on their perceptions." so there's no need to repeat that. However I'm not sure how we define "assumption". For example let's talk about whether or not MJ had issues with her in the last years. My belief that he didn't have issues with her is based on the fact that he didn't say something negative about her. in Rabbi's book he was quite negative towards Madonna for example, he complained about LMP not having kids and so on but nothing negative about Brooke. So my opinion is based on available information. If you or anyone thinks MJ had issues with Brooke, what is that based on? Taking a general statement and believe that it should apply to her? That's a little different in my book but anyway. Let's end this with again repeating "everyone is posting based on their perceptions."

krikzil said:
I see no reason or discrepancy to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't see any discrepancy either. She clearly stated they drifted apart to their own lives (let's not forget that MJ was also married to LMP and later on having kids). She said they weren't seeing each other. Based on what you posted before MJ's death she said they occasionally talk at important life events - like once a year type of thing. (in 2004 statement she says last time she talked to him was a year ago). She put her latest communication with him to sometime around 2005 and even mentioned she couldn't reach him afterwards. Added all together I see it as they drifted apart but maintained positive feelings with occasional communication. I don't think she lied or lies about her relationship with Michael. It's not like she portrays herself as his closest and best friend so I honestly don't get why some members here say "she wasn't his close friend and wasn't close contact with him". We know it, she says it. But not being his closest friend doesn't necessarily mean she abandoned him and/or he had issues with her.

and that kinda annoys me. yes we all also know majority of MJ's friends did abandon him but here you have a person that has defended him twice. why do we need to bring her down? what has she done so bad towards MJ that she deserves this?
 
You're making assumptions again Ivy. You should know when people are debating there's a difference between I know and I believe.You proved me wrong posting those statements she made defending him, I give you that but you're choosing to take her words for granted without any other evidence like it's the definite truth. As for the tapes, those weren't meant to be public, the only thing we know is that those conversations occurred between 1999-2001. And the truth is that Michael never bashed/complained LMP in public. We don't know for sure what happened in 2005 and afterwards other than what Michael told some people and what some could witness when it came to his relationships. He felt abandoned without a doubt and with little support.
 
^^The funny thing about this is that in other threads like the allegation & bodyguard the same people who talk about how abandon michael was, in this thread he is not because there is no proof, Brooke is nice, there is a list of people who support him, Brooke made 2 statements, and some supported him in private. I guess to be abandon you have to be abandon 100%. Personally when you have these types of dirty scandals that could hurt your freedom, I think anyone who supports you in private and not publicly has abandon you. The good thing is that Brooke was public as Ivy showed, but I take offense with her claims about the relationship and about Michael being terrified. She never said those in the 80s when she was using him for her own reasons. Now in 2014 he is terrified because she gains no reward in keeping her feelings private. He was used by her. He went around telling people he liked her and they were dating.
 
Last edited:
Michael himself said he chickened out during their one intimate encounter. I'm not sure why she's the liar then?

My personal take is that MJ did have intimacy issues back then. For a good many legitimate reasons.

and that kinda annoys me. yes we all also know majority of MJ's friends did abandon him but here you have a person that has defended him twice. why do we need to bring her down? what has she done so bad towards MJ that she deserves this? -- Ivy
Click to expand...

Rather mystified myself.
 
Last edited:
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
You're making assumptions again. without any other evidence like it's the definite truth.
Click to expand...

and so do you. Like I said there's no sense in continuing on this road.

Petrarose said:
^^The funny thing about this is that in other threads like the allegation & bodyguard the same people who talk about how abandon michael was, in this thread he is not because there is no proof
Click to expand...

now you are being unfair. Personally I said I believe Michael and I totally agree that he was abandoned by some of his friends. However I pointed out it doesn't necessarily mean Brooke was included in that abandonment. I would appreciate if you didn't twist it


but I take offense with her claims about the relationship and about Michael being terrified.
Click to expand...

and isn't it what's going on here? You and some others take offense to what she says about romance and being terrified and then there's this sudden need to portray her negatively and even accuse her of stuff she never did?

Like I said a millionth time everyone is writing based on their perceptions. It's also completely fine if you don't like or believe Brooke for whatever reason. However there's no need to create accusations towards people with no basis either. I took an offense to accusing her for not supporting Michael when she actually supported him twice publicly. Perhaps it's me but after Robson episode, people who supported MJ and didn't change their position gets a whole a lot of credit from me.

And going back to the topic : there's almost no mention of Michael in her book.
 
Michael said he chickened out on the tapes, true but I insist, they weren't meant to be public. Probably if he hasn't passed we wouldn't know that from him in public. But Brooke as she's selling her memoir she can use it to her favor. And we already know how the media is when someone reveals something about him, they focuse on it too much no matter how little the mentioning is.
 
There were so many truly evil people in MJ's life so I always find it odd when fans attack someone as harmless as Brooke. It's like some try so hard to find something to bash in everyone who was around MJ. People are not perfect, so you can always find a reason to bash anyone, but I don't think Brooke was one of the bad people in MJ's life.

Petrarose said:
Yet I still like Brooke, but I am not going to believe everything she says since Michael claims something else.
Click to expand...

What was the something else that Michael claimed which directly contradicts what Brooke says? He never claimed that Brooke abandoned him.
Were there many people who abandoned him? Yes, there were. But from that to make the conclusion that he's definitely talking about Brooke is such a stretch. He could have meant hundreds of other people by that comment, not only Brooke. From that Evvy Tavasci note we do know that there WERE people who did call and offer their help. So to make it out to be such an extreme situation where absolutely everyone abandoned him is just not right and not correct. And Michael himself never claimed that either.

Is it speculation that Brooke was among those calling and offering their help? Maybe, as we do not have definitive proof of it, however there is still more proof for her support than for any basis of the bashing she gets here. Like shown above she did publicly support him both in 1993 and 2004. She says they last talked in 2005, which implicitly means that they did speak in 2005, so during or shortly after MJ's trial. She also mentions Michael calling her in 2003 when her father died. Michael was not the kind of person who called people against whom he held a grudge, so I have no reason to think there were any hard feelings between them if Michael called her. Michael also spoke nicely of her to the Rabbi. In fact, he even had a painting of Brooke on his bedroom wall. I don't think that would have been the case if he had felt Brooke did something bad against him.

1816v6.jpg




My main problem with her is that she is perpetuating the persona of Michael as a man terrified of intimate relationships & sex.

---

And about the comment that some fans thrive on negative, well negativity is saying Michael was terrified and believing in it and condoning it. Terrified is not a positive word.
Click to expand...

Terrified or chickened out is basically the same thing - only a matter of semantics and a matter of their own perspective of the situation but here again we see that what Brooke says is actually consistent with what Michael said. I have no problems with accepting the fact that Michael might not have been that comfortable with sex and intimacy during the 80s. I see no problems with that, he was a late bloomer, he needed his time and he got more comfortable later. Big deal.

Yes, maybe Michael would have never allowed that to be published, but on the other hand he knew the Rabbi was recording him and was not shy or ashamed to talk about it. In actuality, he was never shy about talking about the fact that he was not that comfortable with sex and intimacy early on. He does not try to portray himself as some big womanizer. He openly talked about the fact that Tatum O'Neal too wanted something more from him and he was not ready. I don't think that Michael ever tried to hide the fact that he was not that comfortable with sex and intimacy at the time. Partly because of religious reasons, partly because he himself was not ready.
 
When the rabbi recorded him, they were friends/acquaintances, I assume Michael authorized it but when he found out the rabbi stole from a Heal The World/Kids charity, he didn't want to have anything with him ever again. That's why it's certain he wouldn't allow the tapes to be published if he was here. Around 2003-2004 when LMP brutally trashed him the most, there's a picture of Michael holding a picture of hers. He also had another one in his Neverland room where she's with her father. She did many hurtful things to him but he managed having her around through pictures.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
When the rabbi recorded him, they were friends/acquaintances, I assume Michael authorized it but when he found out the rabbi stole from a Heal The World/Kids charity, he didn't want to have anything with him ever again. That's why it's certain he wouldn't allow the tapes to be published if he was here.
Click to expand...

There you said it. The reason why it would not have been published was not necessarily the content of those tapes but because the relationship between him and the Rabbi went sour.

To be fair: We do know that when there were conversations with MJ recorded for his autobiogarphy he then did not allow everything he said to be printed in the book (esp. about his family). So of course we cannot be sure if he would have allowed this particular part be printed or not. But it did come out and it was out before Brooke wrote her book, so I don't think she is telling anything new with that "terrified" comment that we did not hear from MJ's own mouth before.
 
I am not a big fan of Brooke. I believe she just opened a can of worms with this book and these interviews. I believe she could've tell better stories about her and Michael rather than use words like "terrified of dating" or "asexual" (She used this term before, in one of her past interviews, couple of years ago) but the "abandoned him" thing is too dramatic, espicially since it's based on a story that doesn't even have her name in it, just a mere speculation that she's who Grace talked about. I think they just fell out of touch. Mutual thing. They both started to have more serious relationships in 1993, She started seeing Andre Agassi, He started seeing Lisa Marie. He got married, she got married. It doesn't have to some big drama abandonment. Could be, but it's really unfounded for now.

By the way - wasn't there a discussion about that Grace quote about the Neverland party? like it wasn't exactly that?
 
I never said Grace's story was truthful, I said if that story is true. Unlike some people here, I'm not believing without evidence and if it's true she called him "asexual", she had no right and not being ready for a relationship of partners or sexually speaking, it doesn't make a person asexual.
 
^ The exact term she used was "he was asexual to me". I don't think using the term asexual was smart of her, but in the context where it was said to me it seemed she simply said that their relationship was not sexual. Yes, she should have said it in a different way, but it's not an unforgivable sin to me that she said this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top