Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael"/ Excerpt @pg151/New Interview Post 3743


Hehe I always love to hear the Madonna/MJ stories. They make me smile. Talk about your complete personality opposites. I just knew she tried to seduce him. Glad he was probably the one guy she couldn't have.


Ha Ha Ha agree with you. The story about Madonna and MJ always made me laugh so hard. The story MJ told to Rabbi Shmuley is just making me laugh. I also remembered reading a blog years ago wrote by someone who worked for MJ during dangerous era. He also mentioned the Madonna story and said MJ was scared by her. lol
 
On a different note... and I know how that is gonna be received: I'm partway through Dieter Wiesner's book (in German) and he actually commented on that story in his book as well- which interestingly makes 2 people who were shaking their heads about this story of those three driving cross-country by themselves.

Hope you can share some summary of Dieter's book or important part. Wondering to know what's his side of story.
 
On a different note... and I know how that is gonna be received: I'm partway through Dieter Wiesner's book (in German)

Could you please give a summary of the book once you've finished it? If there is any new info there. I'm curious, but my German is elementary.
 
Mod Note
This thread is closed for review and cleaning

Edit

This Thread is now open for discussion lets please stay on topic
 
Could you please give a summary of the book once you've finished it? If there is any new info there. I'm curious, but my German is elementary.

Hope you can share some summary of Dieter's book or important part. Wondering to know what's his side of story.

Will do at some point. :)
 
To ME this is the best review of this book and most fair IMO



My Friend Michael: Just One Fan’s Honest Review | AllForLoveBlog

www.allforloveblog.com

My Friend Michael: Just One Fan’s Honest Review

Posted by: Raven on: January 9 2012 • Categorized in: Gossip,Little Known Stuff,Personal Reflections,Reviews,The Allegations,The Never-Ending Media War

Warning: This review WILL contain spoilers, so if you haven’t read the book yet but plan to, consider yourself forewarned!
Well, as I mentioned here before, I did end up receiving Frank Cascio’s book “My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship With An Extraordinary Man” for Christmas. I also promised a full review after I had finished reading it.
Back when I did my article on Christmas Shopping For The MJ Fan On Your List I mentioned how polarizing this book has been in the fan community. I haven’t seen much easing up in that regard, but I will note one thing I’ve observed for the most part-those fans who thoroughly trash the book, along with Frank Cascio, will usually admit they haven’t even read the book. Most of them will say they refuse to read it; a refusal based on their own personal feelings against the Cascio family and/or some of the more sensational publicity this book garnered on release. Typically, every media review of the book honed in on what is actually one very small and isolated portion of the book-Michael’s drug use, especially that of propofol. When the book came out, it was at the height of the Murray trial and of course, this was the one topic the media cared about the most-and the one aspect of the book that every reviewer seemed eager to pounce on.
I think based on these early reviews, many fans had an automatic, knee-jerk response to the book and its author. Of course, none of that has been helped by the controversy over the Cascio tracks on the “Michael” album. Ever since then, Cascio has become-like many of Michael’s acquaintances-a somewhat controversial and polarizing figure.
But regardless of how one feels about Frank Cascio personally, one fact is undisputable: Michael Jackson was a very big part of this young man’s life, for many years. Frank was there when many of the darkest chapters of Michael’s life played out. He knew both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo, and as one of the many boys who formed that circle of friends in the early 90′s that included McCauley Culkin and others, Frank was in a unique position to tell that side of the story.
I said when I received the book that I would read it with an open mind. The bottom line is that, yes, there are some things that may be unsettling to some fans-if they are still clinging to some idealized version of who Michael was. Since that’s never been an issue with me, I frankly wasn’t shocked by some of the book’s “revelations.” But I think the bigger picture here is that the book does exonerate Michael on many bigger and more important issues.
However, that isn’t to say that I didn’t read between the lines and also find some fault with the book. But overall, I honestly think the worst thing Frank is guilty of is what I call the “Insider’s Syndrome.” It seems to be something that no aquaintance of Michael’s was immune to. Without fail, everyone who knew him seems to want to think of themselves as Michael’s closest friend and most intimate confidante. And along with that, often the idealized belief that they could have somehow “saved” him. Granted, in Frank’s case, he did know Michael in a way few people ever got to. And certainly it would be arrogant and presumprious of me-or anyone-to sit here and say I know better than Frank what Michael did or thought or said. That’s not my intent. However, I did sometimes catch myself reading between the lines and second guessing some of the assumptions he makes-for example, that Michael’s marriage to Lisa was a sham (even if they did have sex-according to Frank, the sex was just a by-product, not so much that they actually loved each other, but because Michael wanted kids…and well, frankly, she was there and available) or his assertion that Michael never had sex with Debbie (insisting that Pricne and Paris were both conceived in vitro; so yes, according to Frank, Michael is indisputably the biological father of all his chikldren, but he never touched Debbie). To be fair, he makes it very clear that his assumptions are based on what Michael told him; he wasn’t there in the room, of course. But by his own admission, he also admits several instances where Michael lied to him-so who’s to say? I’ve read some fan reviews of the book where people have said, “How would Frank know the details of Michael and Lisa’s marriage; he was just a kid?”
According to Frank Cascio, Michael Said He Had Sex With Her...But That Was All It Was.

Yes, but…let’s not forget that Michael and Frank remained close friends well into Frank’s adulthood. I’m sure Michael probably talked to him about these things, if not at the time, maybe later.
But I did question, for instance, if he was really with Michael when Michael supposedly “chose” Blanket’s mother out of a donor catalog-or that it was actually he who made the final choice! I’m just very suspicious by nature when someone claims to have been right by Michael’s side through every major important move and decision of his life. I’m willing to give to Frank that he was there for a LOT of it-but to hear him tell it, he was practically Michael’s shadow! (Let’s just say, some of it I bought, and some I took with the proverbial grain of salt).
When I was reading the part about Michael and Lisa’s marriage, I couldn’t help but think back to what David Nordahl told me in our interview last year. David, who was another of Michael’s closest freinds (for over 20 years) and very loyal, spent over two weeks living with Michael and Lisa at the Trump towers in 1994, and by his own account, Michael and Lisa were “very much in love.” I have no reason to doubt David’s sincerity, so for me, that casts an automatic cloud of suspicion over Frank’s claims that Michael told him he had married Lisa just to satisfy bin Talal (an Arabian businessman who Michael apparently had many dealings with, and who was also apparently insistent on Michael having an image as a family man-at any rate, according to Frank, this bin Talal seemed to be Michael’s magical explanation for a lot of things).
But there is also another possibility, which is that Michael may have told Frank this after having become bitter over the breakup with Lisa; perhaps as a way of salvaging his own pride. (Oh, well, I never loved her anyway; I just married her because bin Talal wanted me to).
With The Entire Cascio Clan

Now see, this is where Frank’s book gets interesting for me. It’s not so much what he writes, but the little, subtle things one can pick up between the lines. Or as I call them, the gray areas. For it’s often in those gray areas that one really finds the truth, or the closest version to it. What a reader can take from this is that there is often some element of truth in all sides of a story-in this case, a marriage that may have indeed been a sham, but that nevertheless, perhaps Michael and Lisa did have genuine love, and certainly had sex. Michael could be manipulative and at times, did stretch the truth-but he was 100% honest and up front about the things that really mattered in his life, and this is what all readers need to keep uppermost in mind. Michael apparently never lied about the things that were most important-his innocence of the allegations, his vitiligo, the paternity of his children, and that ever pesky little question of his true sexuality. It doesn’t bother me in the least if the truth of the matter is that he never really wanted to marry either Lisa or Debbie. Michael wanted children-not necessarily a wife and children. But regardless, he did have a very real bond with both Lisa and Debbie. And as Debbie herself has said, so what if theirs wasn’t a traditional family or traditional arrangement? It was their decision, and their life.
Michael Was Undergoing Painful Vitiligo Treatments That Called For Up To 50 Facial Injections Per Doctor Visit

This is just the beginning. There are other very telling details that give a reader pause for thought, or that may make them question certain beliefs about Michael they have thought to be true. Just to give another example, one of the more controversial aspects of the book is that Frank writes candidly (but also, I should add, very sympathetically) about Michael’s struggles with painkiller dependency and the Demerol shots he was receiving from Klein. But he also reveals that Michael was undergoing a very excruciatingly painful treatment for vitiligo that involved regular treatments of over fifty facial injections per visit.
I haven’t had time yet to research this treatment as thoroughly as I would like, but I did have some very interesting links that were provided to me by shelley (thanks!):
http://www.vitiligosociety.co.za/Needling.html
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/psi/2011/158241/
http://acupuncturemiracle.blogspot.com/2011/07/acupuncture-treatment-in-vitiligo.html
And then there is this document, in which Tom Meserau refers specifically to a vitiligo treatment Michael was receiving that involved injections:
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf
The reason I find this interesting is because if this is true, it provides one more instance in which Michael is actually vindicated by the revelation of this information. Remember how the media had a field day with the Demerol story, and how they were speculating why anyone would receive that much Demerol just for botox injections? But could it be that the injections Michael was receiving were not for botox at all, but rather legit if albeit experiemental vitiligo treatments? I don’t know about you guys, but personally, the thought of having 50 needles injected in my face would certainly be enough to make me want a shot of Demerol! And remember, I had quoted before from Dr. Treacy who said that Michael did have hyersensitivity in the facial area due to past surgeries, and therefore always requested some form of sedation before any cometic or dermatological procedures:
http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-h...l-jackson-care-gave-propofol-previously-video
There are other examples of what I call “gray area vindication” throughout the book, instances in which we can see how certain myths about Michael may have gotten their start, but also getting the whole story of the truth that often lay behind those stories.
Just for example, Michael did refer to wine as “Jesus juice” and often did drink wine in soda cans, just as was alleged by the Arvizos during the trial. But it was not for the sinister reason that the Arvizos and DA tried to insist in the trial; it was not for the purpose of enticing children to drink with him. Rather, it was something he did to protect the children around him, as he did not want to set an example of drinking alcohol to them. Also, because being the very private person that he was, he didn’t necessarily want everyone to know his business. However, sometimes it’s important to know the truth if it means the difference between exoneration and allowing false notions to stand. Personally, it doesn’t bother me to know Michael liked his wine, whether in soda cans or not; I would personally find it a lot more disturbing if he had gone around drinking openly in front of kids!
The important thing one has to keep in mind when reading a memoir-especially a memoir of one’s experience with a famous person-is that no matter how honest this person is, in the grander scheme of things, their story is simply their version of the reality they lived. The root word of “memoir” is “memory.” But by our very human nature, our memories are often selective; occasionally even distorted. Our versions of events are filtered by our own biases and whatever baggage we associate with those memories. Memoirs have to accepted as what they are-one individual’s reality and perception of events. Memoirs can be entertaining, engaging, and even thought-provoking. But they can’t-nor shouldn’t-always be taken as gospel. However, I think if a reader approaches this book with a fair and open mind, they can certainly learn about the man Michael Jackson that Frank Cascio knew. And I do think Frank is being honest and open in presenting us the man, Michael Jackson, who was his friend and mentor. Like I said, it may not necessarily jibe with the idealized version of Michael that many fans have. But we have to keep in mind, this was Frank’s experience and the Michael Jackson presented in this memoir is the man he knew. Ultimately, however, memoirs of this type always end up being as much about the person writing them as about the subject in question. We have to keep in mind this isn’t “just” Michael’s story. It’s also Frank’s story and what it was like to come of age as a young man living in the shadow of Michael Jackson. When you realize that your whole life has revolved around Michael Jackson since the age of four, how does one find their own identity and purpose in the world? How do they manage to forage their own path? For Frank Cascio, that question has probably been his biggest life challenge.
Frank also does a good job of debunking the whole false notion which emerged after the Bashir crock, which was that Michael routinely had kids over for sleepovers at Neverland. In simple truth, the infamous “sleepovers” never happened, at least not as they have come to be portrayed. The sleepovers involved entire families-families who often traveled over great distances to be at Neverland. Michael’s enormous bedroom suite became a kind of informal, focal gathering place for these families, where people watched TV, played games, or simply talked until everyone fell asleep, exhausted. With the candor of an insider’s persective, Frank tells the truth about what those nights spent at Michael’s house were…and more importantly, what they were not.
Contrary To Popular Myth, Michael DID Alter His Behavior With Children After The '93 Allegations. The Accusations Left Him Permanently Scarred, And Fearful Of Being Accused Again.

And contrary to what some cynics say, Michael did alter his behavior around children following the ’93 Chandler allegations. He never again allowed young children-especially boys-to be in his bedroom unchaperoned (the parents were always present) and in most cases, he was careful from then on to always make sure that any child he was around was accompanied by an adult. One of the small but significant details that my boyfriend and I have noticed is that throughout the HIStory tour, when he would do the Heal The World finale, he never held hands with the boys or picked them up; it was always the girls that he would single out. Obviously, the first allegations did their damage. He was scarred emotionally by the accusations-but he also learned from them. That he would come to be accused again would come about, not because of any undue carelessness or blatant disregard and arrogance on Michael’s part-as has often been erroneoulsy reported- but because he was too kind-hearted to turn down a child in need of help.
was Michael Jackson Slated To Be The Original Simon Cowell? Perhaps Yes, Had Plans For The Show "Hollywood Ticket" Materialized

There are also a lot of interesrting but little known facts that I discovered from the book. For example, did you know that in the early 2000′s, before the debut of “American Idol”, that Michael was being slated to do his own weekly talent show, one in which he would have been the judge? Apparently the project, tentatively titled “Hollywood Ticket” fell through, mostly due to waning interest on Michael’s part (anyway, we all know Michael wasnt’t fond of being on TV; he probably got cold feet over the idea of being on national TV every week and the obligation of having to be a weekly judge and mentor) but I have to say, it certainly would have been interesting had the project gone through. Sadly, though, this seemed to be the story so often in Michael’s last dcecade, so many projects that never materialized, and the saddest of all, knowing that it was often his legal issues and the mismanagement within his own ranks that led to these aborted projects.

Frank Cascio’s experience with Michael Jackson was an unique one from the beginnning. It wasn’t an aquaintance he sought out, or even one that he made on his own. Imagine, if you will, that you are a small child, and your parents just happen to be best friends with a world famonus superstar. This was how Michael Jackson came to be part of Frank Cascio’s life. Imagine said superstar becomes your mentor and greatest teacher; now flash forward many years, and you find yourself as a young adult not only working for him, but even at times having to reverse the father/son role, which is a sad reality that happens for many of us as we grow up and realize our parents or even our “parent figures” aren’t the perfect people we envisioned as children, but rather, imperfect human beings just like ourselves. I can see why some fans have concerns about the book. There were a few things that I questioned-even if it’s true, why the need to include it here if it serves no real purpose? Why not keep some things private? Just for example, I don’t know that the whole world necessarily needed to know that Michael experimented with marijuana. It’s not that I’m a prude and really, these days, smoking a little popt isn’t really frowned upon that much more than drinking beer. But as we know too well, the media has always bpeen prone to judge Michael by a different standard than other celebrities. That’s really the whole issue when it comes to making these kinds of private details public-we all know how the media loves to sensationalize and run with any story on Michael Jackson. This knowledge is, in turn, I believe, why so many fans are prone to feel very over protective about what is written about Michael. It simply comes from long experience with knowing how the media has always loved to portray Michael Jackson. What is seen as harmless behavior for most celebrities somehow becomes damning when it’s Michael Jackson. (However, if you are curious about this, I’ll just say that you’re probably going to find it quite funnny when you discover just who it was that turned Michael on to pot…hint: It certainly wasn’t any of his heavy metal stoner friends!).
Did Some of Michael's Luckier Female Fans make It To "Never-Never Land?" Frank Says Yes. But The Occasional Encounters Were Always Very Discreet

Again, some will fault Frank for this revelation, just as they have for some of the things he reveals about Michael’s private sex life (though nothing too graphic; however, he does say that Michael had quite a few, casual encounters through the years, even with some fans…well, lucky them, I guess). However, I’ll stress again that the importance of knowing this information is that, violation of privacy or not, it does help to exonerate Michael in perhaps a far more crucial way, which is the knowledge that his only sexual interests were in adult relationships with women-not children, and certainly not with boys.
Personally, I think the book does a great job of balancing the idealized Michael Jackson with the human one. Michael didn’t walk on water and he wasn’t God. His bled like everyone else. But there is a very poignant passage in the book which I’ll quote here, since the quoting of brief passages are allowed for review purposes:
Michael’s skin disease, along with his difficult childhood and the molesation allegations, were conditions or circumstances that he did his best to survive, and the plastic surgeries he had on his nose were, like so many of his eccentricities, attempts to exert some kind of control over his own destiny and happiness. Those surgeries didn’t make him normal. And, in many people’s eyes, they didn’t make him beautiful. What they did do was make him Michael.
I bolded that last sentence to make a point. We could say likewise that Michael’s very human flaws didn’t make him good or bad, beautiful or ugly. But they did make him Michael. What emerges from this book is a portrait of a very beautiful, generous, talented, and intelligent but vulnerable man who had been battering his wings against the iron bars of the gilded cage ever since he was five years old-he had learned how to fight, and how to survive, the only way he knew how. His way wasn’t always the best or most admirable way, but it was his way.
Michael and Frank, Still Friends To The End, Although Michael's legal Problems And The Arvizo Trial Would Drive A Wedge Between Them. They Reconciled, But The Scars Were Slow To Heal.

And it was the totality of this very complex humanity that made him who he was. If it achieves nothing else, I think “My Friend Michael” does a wonderful job of capturing that very complex humanity and allowing us all to get to know the man behind the myth a little better. There were many times while reading this book that I laughed out loud (you have to read all about the midnight excursion of the haunted hotel in Scotland; that part is hilarious); there were also many times that I cried. But most of all, I felt inspired. Through the pages of this book, one gets to know the great friend that Frank had in Michael-and when it’s over, we miss him all over again. We feel the ache of that emptiness; the void that has been left. We are reminded anew of how poorer we are for his loss; but also, how enriched we are for having had him among us for a little while.
 
bluetopez;3575663 said:
To ME this is the best review of this book and most fair IMO



My Friend Michael: Just One Fan’s Honest Review | AllForLoveBlog

www.allforloveblog.com

My Friend Michael: Just One Fan’s Honest Review

Posted by: Raven on: January 9 2012 • Categorized in: Gossip,Little Known Stuff,Personal Reflections,Reviews,The Allegations,The Never-Ending Media War



Did Some of Michael's Luckier Female Fans make It To "Never-Never Land?" Frank Says Yes. But The Occasional Encounters Were Always Very Discreet

Again, some will fault Frank for this revelation, just as they have for some of the things he reveals about Michael’s private sex life (though nothing too graphic; however, he does say that Michael had quite a few, casual encounters through the years, even with some fans…well, lucky them, I guess). However, I’ll stress again that the importance of knowing this information is that, violation of privacy or not, it does help to exonerate Michael in perhaps a far more crucial way, which is the knowledge that his only sexual interests were in adult relationships with women-not children, and certainly not with boys.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :thinking:



:smilerolleyes:




But OK.... :fear:
 
LOL Ash I said most fair review cause IMO it's true. But, I still disagree with MOST things he revealed in the book anywayz cause that's just how I feel some things were pointless IMO.

Except for the allegations part!

So I feel u! ;)
 
I really liked the book! I started it Friday afternoon and finished it Sunday night. I don't think he revealed anything too bad, not as bad as many were expecting. I usually don't go through books this fast but it was that good. I kinda wished it wasn't over when I got to the end last night.
 
Very good review you posted, BlueTopez...I really can't disagree with it. I thought a lot of the same things as I read this book...about the Demerol injections and that pre-American Idol talent show that never materialized, etc.
 
^ What crap! They just seem to want only glowing reviews. -_- Clearly they don't expect that everyone interpetation will be they same...do they? o_O lol
 
Last edited:
I'm reading Frank's book for the 2nd time, and I agree with the review posted by bluetopaz. I like it very much.

I've always wondered if it was partly Michael's "too good to be true" image that caused so many to pounce on the false allegations as proof of..... something. I would caution those who try to silence anyone who knew Michael from telling their stories, because only truth will drown out lies. A lack of first hand info leaves only rumor, speculation and outright lies. As time goes by and people unfamiliar with the Chandler and Arviso extortion plots want to learn, they need something other than A Jones' book. Frank happened to be a witness to both the Chandlers' and the Arvisos' interactions with Michael, he KNOWS what happened. I hope this book is a best seller and I hope Michael can be loved for the human being he was, not the just entertainer.
 
I loved the little 'secret' he tells us about animatronic Wendy at the Peter Pan ride in Disneyland Paris. :lmao:
 
Hi everyone,

I see this has been a very popular topic of discussion, and unfortunately I don't have the time to read 252 or so posts, so I was hoping that someone would see my message here and reply. I am a bit confused about the "Munich 1999" events that Frank is describing in the book. I have been there outside Michael's hotel throughout his whole visit and at the What More Can I Give concert, and after reading the pages 123-129 some things don't make sense.

Page 126, 3rd paragraph
Frank wrote: "Instantly, without thinking, I ran onto the stage along with the security team. At the end of the song, the lights went out, and Michael collapsed into our arms. With security, I helped him off the bridge."
- That doesn't really make sense. If you check Michael's performance you will see that no-one runs to the stage when the accident happens. There is someone that jumps from the stage down to the bridge after MJ's been standing there quite a while singing, but it doesn't seem to be Frank... Then, when he says that Michael was helped off the bridge by security that doesn't make any sense at all, because Michael jumps from the bridge back to the stage by himself, finishes the song and then leaves.

Same page, 5th paragraph:
"So he went back out, sat down on the edge of the stage, and sang his last song, 'You Are Not Alone'"
Michael doesn't sit down on the edge of the stage during the You Are Not Alone performance at all. Why did he say this??

Things like that make me question the honesty of the book - there seem to be exaggerations at certain points, which makes me feel a bit wary of the book. When you've been there yourself, experienced things for yourself, and then you read these kind of words that contradict what really happened, it makes you think "what else is he saying wrong"?

Otherwise I am enjoying the book a lot, and I hope he's been truthful about most of it. But in Michael's world (as we've seen countless times before), people can change and twist things around so quickly... it's so sad that we always have to be suspicious.

Also, as fans, we understand why Michael would be wary of people, but it seems that Frank keeps questioning Michael's "paranoia" and mentions it a lot. Didn't he understand him the most after being with him for so long, seeing how his life was and how bad people clang on to MJ and try to use him? It's just a bit strange that he keeps mentioning that MJ was paranoid, when it's clear why MJ would be wary. I'd not call that paranoia, I'd call it being smart and observant. Hmmmm...

Whoever was in Munich in June 1997 - PLEASE REPLY about the Munich part, or any other parts of the book where you've been there yourself in person but don't agree with what Frank has written...

Thanks,
Tanja
 
Page 126, 3rd paragraph
Frank wrote: "Instantly, without thinking, I ran onto the stage along with the security team. At the end of the song, the lights went out, and Michael collapsed into our arms. With security, I helped him off the bridge."
- That doesn't really make sense. If you check Michael's performance you will see that no-one runs to the stage when the accident happens. There is someone that jumps from the stage down to the bridge after MJ's been standing there quite a while singing, but it doesn't seem to be Frank... Then, when he says that Michael was helped off the bridge by security that doesn't make any sense at all, because Michael jumps from the bridge back to the stage by himself, finishes the song and then leaves.

Same page, 5th paragraph:
"So he went back out, sat down on the edge of the stage, and sang his last song, 'You Are Not Alone'"
Michael doesn't sit down on the edge of the stage during the You Are Not Alone performance at all. Why did he say this??

Things like that make me question the honesty of the book - there seem to be exaggerations at certain points, which makes me feel a bit wary of the book. When you've been there yourself, experienced things for yourself, and then you read these kind of words that contradict what really happened, it makes you think "what else is he saying wrong"?

Otherwise I am enjoying the book a lot, and I hope he's been truthful about most of it. But in Michael's world (as we've seen countless times before), people can change and twist things around so quickly... it's so sad that we always have to be suspicious.

Also, as fans, we understand why Michael would be wary of people, but it seems that Frank keeps questioning Michael's "paranoia" and mentions it a lot. Didn't he understand him the most after being with him for so long, seeing how his life was and how bad people clang on to MJ and try to use him? It's just a bit strange that he keeps mentioning that MJ was paranoid, when it's clear why MJ would be wary. I'd not call that paranoia, I'd call it being smart and observant. Hmmmm...

Whoever was in Munich in June 1997 - PLEASE REPLY about the Munich part, or any other parts of the book where you've been there yourself in person but don't agree with what Frank has written...

Thanks,
Tanja

I was not there but I think we all not to be there to comment on the 99 Munich issue because it's on tape for everyone to see on internet. It's clearly Frank remembered the whole things wrong and he didn't bother to double check the video again. I knew he described the whole situation wrong but it didn't bother me to much about this part. The memory of human beings is tricky and you have to know that the accident has been more than a decades ago. It's normal that you won't remember the details or even recalled it in a wrong way. Sometimes you can just remembered the big outline. For example, he remembered the accident and the bridge falls in Munich concert. However, the details might go wrong. For example, how MJ and the security behaved after the accident. It's nature that people recalled the same thing in different ways and they might put focus on different details. For example, during the Murray trials, the bodyguards and the paramedics recalled the same thing differently and it's only been 2 years. That's why Frank's book is only one part of the source.

For the paranoid part, I also don't like how many times he stated in the book. However, I can also understand why he said that. Being with MJ for many years doesn't mean that he know or understand everything. Base on what he described in his book, it seemed like he was from a happy family and he jumped to work for MJ since 18. He might not be expose to a lot of dirty side of human nature. Even if he was near MJ and also said he saw many people taking advantage of MJ, being MJ himself is not like observing as bystander. I think it's normal that MJ being cautious about everybody. Who can blame him. However, is everyone MJ being suspicious about really had bad intend? maybe, maybe not.
 
If Frank remembered the whole thing wrong as you say, what is the point of the book? Then he might have gotten other events wrong as well... Munich 1999 event happened only 12.5 years ago and earlier in the book he is describing the events from 1985 - when he was only 5 years old. If he can remember events that happened when he was 5 years old his memory must be pretty good. And by the way, how come he can then remember certain dialogues they have had in late 1980s / early 1990s?

I think it is crucial that the facts about Michael are written truthfully and as they happened. In the book he mentions how Michael always said to him: "If you're doing a job, do it perfectly", so I wouldn't expect anything less than that from this book. His life teacher was Michael Jackson and just imagine how Michael himself would feel if he read that his "student" got certain events in his life wrong. It's a miss representation and even though it might seem like a small "mistake" it threatens the entire Cascio family's story.

Frank could have easily researched the Munich 1999 experience online - if he thought his memory is fading and that he could have got certain events wrong.

About your comment regarding Murray's trial and how the bodyguards couldn't "remember" the events that happened that morning and it has only been 2 years ago. That just demonstrates the lack of care, the lack of personal interest in Michael's life, his well-being. Clearly, they were all primarily focused on their enormous salaries.

Regarding your final paragraph about how Frank was only 18 years old when he started working for Michael so in your estimate that means that he doesn't have to necessarily understand him. I never lived with Michael Jackson and I come from a small country where people don't really speak English and have at the age of 9 grasped the enormity of Michael's life and how people always try to use and abuse him. So, someone like Frank, who had the privilege to be with him throughout his life and not understanding this part of Michael's life, is quite disappointing to me…
 
tanjamjj;3578864 said:
I think it is crucial that the facts about Michael are written truthfully and as they happened. In the book he mentions how Michael always said to him: "If you're doing a job, do it perfectly", so I wouldn't expect anything less than that from this book. His life teacher was Michael Jackson and just imagine how Michael himself would feel if he read that his "student" got certain events in his life wrong. It's a miss representation and even though it might seem like a small "mistake" it threatens the entire Cascio family's story.

Frank could have easily researched the Munich 1999 experience online - if he thought his memory is fading and that he could have got certain events wrong.

Sorry I reorganized the order of your paragraph so it's easier for me to reply to the discussion.

I do agree with your first part that people written about MJ need to be truthfully. However, as many of us said before what he described the event swith error doesn't equal to he is not telling the truth. Truth also doesn't equal to fact. I personally didn't think the Munich mistakes have big effects. The things you describes before really like small details to me in my POV. After all, what's the point he lied about those things intentionally when it's so easy to be found out? and are those errors about the Munich accident going to make him look good or he would benefit from the errors like it? It only make people question his credibility.

tanjamjj;3578864 said:
If Frank remembered the whole thing wrong as you say, what is the point of the book? Then he might have gotten other events wrong as well... Munich 1999 event happened only 12.5 years ago and earlier in the book he is describing the events from 1985 - when he was only 5 years old. If he can remember events that happened when he was 5 years old his memory must be pretty good. And by the way, how come he can then remember certain dialogues they have had in late 1980s / early 1990s?

To me, the point of the book is one source of the information about MJ written by someone who is actually spending lots of time with him. He is only one of the source and that's why people cross check his words with others. Actually, it's normal that fans would know more "details of event than friends because we probably saw those videos about MJ too many times.

I also read the spirit of MJ from his book. The quotes from MJ can't be all exact (It would be really shocking if he can recall all those in exact phrase unless he had identical memory). It's like I can remembered many memories my parent had with me and things they told me. I knew their spirit, their attitude to life, their way to handle things, and the things they went through etc. It doesn't mean I can recall every details. I can tell you many stories of my parents and their spirit. It doesn't mean everything I say would be the facts. The big outline won't fall to far away but the details might not be exact.

tanjamjj;3578864 said:
About your comment regarding Murray's trial and how the bodyguards couldn't "remember" the events that happened that morning and it has only been 2 years ago. That just demonstrates the lack of care, the lack of personal interest in Michael's life, his well-being. Clearly, they were all primarily focused on their enormous salaries.

This is the part I totally can't agree with you. Not just the bodyguards, the two paramedics also recalled things differently (They are three versions of story about what they saw when they got in the room). What kind of interest are the paramedics going to gain??? They are professionals. Even they had lots of experience and even experience to testify in court, they still say different version of the same event. It's normal. I also think it's a harsh accusation to Alberto Alvarez. If he only cared about the money, he would go sell his story to the media for huge amount of money. I believe the highest offer is half million dollars. He is the first people beside Murray to be in the room. The media would love his story been told.

tanjamjj;3578864 said:
Regarding your final paragraph about how Frank was only 18 years old when he started working for Michael so in your estimate that means that he doesn't have to necessarily understand him. I never lived with Michael Jackson and I come from a small country where people don't really speak English and have at the age of 9 grasped the enormity of Michael's life and how people always try to use and abuse him. So, someone like Frank, who had the privilege to be with him throughout his life and not understanding this part of Michael's life, is quite disappointing to me…

There are all kinds of people in the worlds. People have different opinions. People from different backgrounds. Even Michael's own siblings and his parents can't understand his pain. Even People from the same family handle things differently. The abused childhood also effects people in different ways in the same family. It might because we were all Michael's fans so we pay extra attention to what he said. Try to understand more about what he went through. The first reason we became his fan is because he touched us in someway so we can connect to him someway (This is not how Frank started his relationship with MJ. He knew MJ without knowing who MJ was and only connected because of Frank's father). However, do we all really "understand" and know him deep enough? I guess no one can say. We can only image many things.

Being close to MJ's life does not equal to they would really understand him (ex: some J family members or LMP). Honestly, many parts he described in the book, he already show more understanding than MJ's own family. At least he explained why MJ always suspected people and he also told you how many sharks surrounding MJ. I actually felt that he choose the wrong words. Paranoid is not the proper words he should used. Because the way he described in the book, it's quite clear that MJ was not paranoid with people with no reason. Frank actually mentioned lots of thing why MJ being suspicious about many things and people. He also wrote MJ explains why he need to be careful. So how come it's called paranoid when he actually details and explains all those reason is beyond me. I can only think maybe he or the editor like more dramatic words?!
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone,

I see this has been a very popular topic of discussion, and unfortunately I don't have the time to read 252 or so posts, so I was hoping that someone would see my message here and reply. I am a bit confused about the "Munich 1999" events that Frank is describing in the book. I have been there outside Michael's hotel throughout his whole visit and at the What More Can I Give concert, and after reading the pages 123-129 some things don't make sense.

Page 126, 3rd paragraph
Frank wrote: "Instantly, without thinking, I ran onto the stage along with the security team. At the end of the song, the lights went out, and Michael collapsed into our arms. With security, I helped him off the bridge."
- That doesn't really make sense. If you check Michael's performance you will see that no-one runs to the stage when the accident happens. There is someone that jumps from the stage down to the bridge after MJ's been standing there quite a while singing, but it doesn't seem to be Frank... Then, when he says that Michael was helped off the bridge by security that doesn't make any sense at all, because Michael jumps from the bridge back to the stage by himself, finishes the song and then leaves.

Same page, 5th paragraph:
"So he went back out, sat down on the edge of the stage, and sang his last song, 'You Are Not Alone'"
Michael doesn't sit down on the edge of the stage during the You Are Not Alone performance at all. Why did he say this??

Things like that make me question the honesty of the book - there seem to be exaggerations at certain points, which makes me feel a bit wary of the book. When you've been there yourself, experienced things for yourself, and then you read these kind of words that contradict what really happened, it makes you think "what else is he saying wrong"?

Otherwise I am enjoying the book a lot, and I hope he's been truthful about most of it. But in Michael's world (as we've seen countless times before), people can change and twist things around so quickly... it's so sad that we always have to be suspicious.

Also, as fans, we understand why Michael would be wary of people, but it seems that Frank keeps questioning Michael's "paranoia" and mentions it a lot. Didn't he understand him the most after being with him for so long, seeing how his life was and how bad people clang on to MJ and try to use him? It's just a bit strange that he keeps mentioning that MJ was paranoid, when it's clear why MJ would be wary. I'd not call that paranoia, I'd call it being smart and observant. Hmmmm...

Whoever was in Munich in June 1997 - PLEASE REPLY about the Munich part, or any other parts of the book where you've been there yourself in person but don't agree with what Frank has written...

Thanks,
Tanja

Yikes what a mix up.
 
Last edited:
gif-animado-gato-lixando-a-unha1.gif
 
Karen Faye recently on Frank's book :


TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter
I don't find it accurate. It is only from the POV of an immature boy. He did not know, the things he did not know...so it can not be accurate. That is one of the problems of writing a book about someone else. I think writing a book about MJ is a selfish act. @freeminder66: @wingheart @tajjackson3 FC's book kills the main - it kills Michael's legacy the reasons why we all respacted Michael for so many years :(
TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter
Take a minute to think about it, thoroughly. How would you feel if someone you knew, (only a small portion of your life) wrote a book about you, and you had absolutely no say. Do you think it would encompass who you were? and be an accurate account of your motivations?
TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter
Michael asked me to write a book for him. I wrote a few passages, and let him read them. He liked them, but upon reading what I had written, he interjected so much more of his feelings and inspiration, it gave what I wrote new meaning. THAT is why I would never attempt a book without him. It would not be accurate without him. It would not do him justice.
TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter
My POV would only one small piece of a very big puzzle. Without all the pieces, you can not see the entire picture. What I have learned about Michael is that he was very cautious about his relationships. He was not an open book. He only shared small portions of himself, and different portions with those in his life.
 
MsCassieMollie;3582532 said:
Karen Faye recently on Frank's book :

TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter

My POV would only one small piece of a very big puzzle. Without all the pieces, you can not see the entire picture. What I have learned about Michael is that he was very cautious about his relationships. He was not an open book. He only shared small portions of himself, and different portions with those in his life.





Fact! -_-
 
As much as I hate to say, Karen has a point. The part that Ash highlighted in red is particularly true.

I thought may be if people who knew Michael would write about what their knowledge in an honest manner. Then, we would be able to piece together all the puzzles and get a clearer picture. However, I feel it's just getting more puzzling.

I still think more books should be written on Michael's artistry. I hope more books like Joe Vogel' MITM will be published. However, I'll be cautious in reading a "memoir" style book.

Karen Faye may sound harsh in her tweets. But, what she said is not untrue. I respect her decision to not endorse any book about Michael.
 
I do think KF had her point but she conflicts to her own words. Frank never claimed that you would know "all" about MJ after reading his book. MJ is not an open book and it's true that he shared different parts of him to different people. I think it's true for everyone. We all share different side of us in different occasion to different people. MJ is just like any of us. The part MJ shared with his fans and this worlds are his music, art and dance. The part MJ shared with Frank is part of MJ and Frank's life. Frank's book only let people see parts of MJ being a mentor, boss, and father in "Frank's eyes". It's never going to be the full picture. Frank is holding one piece of the puzzle just like KF and many others who were in MJ's life. Any of them would have the right and choice to write the books. Someone chose to stay silence and someone chose to share their stories to the worlds. I don't see which side are more right or wrong as long as they are telling the truth and talking about the time they were really with MJ. For the historic point of view, MJ is an important people in the history. The only way that people can have a better chance to get a more clear picture of MJ is more people who actually know him come forward to tell the truth. The more people to write about him from different aspects with more solid research not just following the rumors. However, from MJ's point of view, I do think he would want lots of thing to keep to himself.

BTW, I think it's quite immature of her to attack Frank being immature boy. The book "is" Frank's POV and he never denied that. What's her position to call out Frank being all not accurate (I didn't saw her whole tweets so did she mention some events in particular? or just the general idea of the book?) Frank would know something she didn't know and she would know something that Frank didn't know because they both know different parts of MJ's life. How can she be so sure that her memory is the more accurate one??? How she just called out people to be immature is really beyond me.

On the other hand, the things she shared on her FB about MJ before, lots of them are really private things. Some are even more private than what Frank shared in his book. I really don't think she had the position to call out people like that.
 
Last edited:
She's also attacking Jermaine's ghost writer on Twitter and also had a relatively nicer but still not approving exchange with Joe Vogel.

Wait till Michael Bush releases his book and her tune will change..

and gotta love her hypocrisy :

first

I don't find it accurate. It is only from the POV of an immature boy.

second she acknowledges everyone will be in the "small piece of a big puzzle" including herself

My POV would only one small piece of a very big puzzle. Without all the pieces, you can not see the entire picture. What I have learned about Michael is that he was very cautious about his relationships. He was not an open book. He only shared small portions of himself, and different portions with those in his life.

third she's still considering her "small piece of very big puzzle" "can't do him justice" story

If anyone tells MY STORY (not Michael's) it will be me. I would never accept anyone between me and the words of my truth.


edited to add

I also posted on this thread months before that Karen previously had tweets about Frank's book that he's entitled to write his story and she's looking forward to read it and so on. She changes her opinions as the wind change.

1/25/2011

@neverletyoupart I have known the Cascio's almost as long as Michael. I know their relationship. I was closer to Frank than any other member of the family. For me, I will not pass judgement until I know more. I was disappointed when Frank abandoned Michael during the 2005 trial. Watching this unfold will be interesting for me. The Cascio's were a significant part of Michael's life, therefore they were a part of mine.

@whaoo I know why from MJ's explanation. I would like to hear his side too.

@whaoo Yes he was very hurt, but they seemed to have made amends.

I do wish we could refrain from always jumping to the worst case scenario. Defending Michael's history and legacy is very important and honorable, but always assuming the worst isn't productive.

(she had other tweets being supportive of the book as well)
 
haha Ivy, thanks for your summary of KF's tweets. I guess it's the typical Karen. She always keeps changing her stories and where she stands. I guess it's fine that people changes their POV from time to time. However, sometimes I just found her changing too quick. It's amusing to read her own words before and after. lol
 
"When you talk too much". :rofl:

People don't have a right to their own view on their relationship with Michael?:blink::blink:
It has to pre-approved by Michael??
That's not love, that's not respect- that's UNHEALTHY lemming behavior.
Please tell me in which world you can dictate (say, to your boss!) to other people that they are required to view you the way you view yourself. Parallel universe? Now I completely understand that in Michael's case he constantly became the focal point of someone's strange projections- but that doesn't mean that absolutely nobody has a right to their own opinion- especially those that new him for decades.


Last I checked Frank Cascio didn't diss anyone's ex-wife. "When you talk too too much", yeah, definitely. My head. :wacko:

One can definitely love Michael and treat him with respect without losing respect for yourself- and others in the process. Sorry.

This is no longer about treating Michael with respect, but a weird one-sided competition of 'me so holy in the name of Michael'.
I totally understand the need to write a book- and I totally understand those that love him who refrain from that.
This issue is not the benchmark to prove yourself morally incorruptible- especially if you hurt others in the process- willfully and on purpose. (like this 2005 betrayal talk- I guess it's a lot easier to accuse others of betrayal than having to walk the walk of being named a co-conspirator)

Edit: Almost wanted to erase my comment, but I am seriously so tired of people using absolutely anything about Michael- and turn it into something about themselves. Every book, every documentary, every piece of music is accompanied by countless people who wish to state how their inner moral compass requires them to despise it. It gets to the point that it has absolutely nothing to do with Michael- like in this case.
 
Last edited:
You should have heard KF :bs story about MJ at 30th Anniversary madison square garden. Makes Franks look very mild and of course she was the one that "all alone" saved the day there too. But She doesnt sell her stories so that makes it alright for her to write them while she calls other selfish for writing about Michael.

Any tweet Karen Faye makes against others she uses it to lift herself up above them including the fans. Yes We are also selfish for liking and enjoying the Immortal Album and tour. Its only becuase we dont know MJ like she does that we can enjoy these things. She says its a slap in his face and MJ would hate it. (Yes she also speaks for him too) When fans told her Katherine, Paris, Prince and Blanket liked IMMORTAL she said they were just being polite.


IMO Karen acts like a self righteous B*** on twitter. She heaps praises on herself and cut down everyone else who worked with him and his fans who dont agree with her opinions (Truth). She tore LMP to pieces and then praised her after MJ death. When asked why. She said becuase that was HER TRUTH as she undersood it at the time. Showing You cant put any trust in her truth as it may change tomorrow on a whim.
 
Back
Top