Janet Jackson: What's Happening~~~

BlastFromThePast

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2022
Messages
31
Points
18
Janet was VERY positive towards Michael in the documentary. Naturally, the media took literally everything out of context. She dedicated the entire thing to him at the end.

She adamantly said Michael would never do what he was accused of, put the teasing into context, everything. It was great.
 
Last edited:

Carmour260

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
513
Points
18
Just finished watching the documentary. I didn't know Janet was supposed to sign a deal with Coca Cola and then the allegations surfaced and turned her down, just like that. Cancel culture is a beast, even back then! That's what she meant by "guilty by association." The family long talked how those false allegations affected them too. Even while doing the "Scream" short film, I always believed the record labels came between them... I now believe the relationship between Michael and Sony began to crumble when those false allegations surfaced in 1993... after Mariah Carey revealed what really went on during her marriage to Tommy Mottola, the pieces were coming together...
 

Robbsaber01

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
2,360
Points
63
Just watched it tonight. It's great that Janet got to do a doc in her own words. Sadly MJ never really got the same opportunity. The scream studio footage was nice to see. That kind of footage should be in any History doc if it ever happens. Didnt know he did the full vocal in 1 take. Solid doc. Learned alot about Janet.
 

mj_frenzy

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
2,091
Points
63
Location
Greece
Oh it was absolutely no wonder the man couldn't sleep, the shit he had to go through for so many years and being backstabbed left and right and also "friends" that didn't seem to be exactly there for him during the hardest time of his life with the trial but they all showed up at the memorial. I don't know, that just looked so damn off to me.

I would not hold anything against Michael in the case what MJFrenzy said is true, because he wanted to just sleep and couldn't and if you then find a "miracle" med that gets you sleeping real quick.......well....I could see why one would eventually opt for that. But that is all hypothetically speaking, for I don't believe this man actually ASKED for Propofol. This damn med is used to put people into narcosis before a surgery. I don't believe that knowing the life threatening risks, knowing his kids wouldn't have a father anymore he would take those. And you're right, anything coming out of the mouth of Murray goes straight into the trash can indeed.

Beyond tragic when you think about it. Bodyguards there should have demanded to stay where Mike was so they could see what Murray was giving him. But it doesn't matter anymore, he's in a better place now but man do we miss the guy.

I just don't fully understand one thing, why did Murray murder him? He knew what he was doing, what was in it for him?
According to people close to him, Michael Jackson used to ask for Propofol although he knew the life-threatening risks of that drug.

For instance, nurse practitioner Cherilyn Lee stated that the singer (in April 2009) called her and asked from her to give him Propofol to help him sleep.

She warned him that he might not wake up, but he replied to her that his doctors had said it was safe as long as someone was monitoring him, so she spent the night with him monitoring his sleeping patterns while he was being given Propofol.

Also, Dr. Christine Quinn testified that the singer asked from her to give him Propofol to help him sleep (in late '90s).

Dr. Neil Ratner (one of the singer's long-time, personal tour doctors) stated that Michael Jackson asked from him to give him Propofol even on their very first meeting, and he used to give him that drug only for very special occasions, such as in order to help him sleep before a concert.

Non-medical staff is not allowed (for safety reasons) to be present when Propofol is administered to a patient.

This seems to explain why his bodyguards were not allowed to be present when Propofol was administered to Michael Jackson because they could have exposed themselves to dangerous substances that this drug emits.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
According to people close to him, Michael Jackson used to ask for Propofol although he knew the life-threatening risks of that drug.

For instance, nurse practitioner Cherilyn Lee stated that the singer (in April 2009) called her and asked from her to give him Propofol to help him sleep.

She warned him that he might not wake up, but he replied to her that his doctors had said it was safe as long as someone was monitoring him, so she spent the night with him monitoring his sleeping patterns while he was being given Propofol.

Also, Dr. Christine Quinn testified that the singer asked from her to give him Propofol to help him sleep (in late '90s).

Dr. Neil Ratner (one of the singer's long-time, personal tour doctors) stated that Michael Jackson asked from him to give him Propofol even on their very first meeting, and he used to give him that drug only for very special occasions, such as in order to help him sleep before a concert.

Non-medical staff is not allowed (for safety reasons) to be present when Propofol is administered to a patient.

This seems to explain why his bodyguards were not allowed to be present when Propofol was administered to Michael Jackson because they could have exposed themselves to dangerous substances that this drug emits.

And in your views/opinion was it that Murray murdered Michael or did he give him too much or did he just walk away from monitoring the whole process?I didn't follow the trial for Murray back then, but was it neglect? Did we lose this amazing human being because of neglect of a "doctor"?

Overall, I don't know, can a human even live as long as he did if he got propofol administered so much? This stuff is incredibly heavy, also, isn't it pretty much completely illegal too? Weren't all those doctors back then basically doing illegal, forbidden things in their profession?
 

Antwort

Proud Member
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
1,303
Points
63
Janet was VERY positive towards Michael in the documentary. Naturally, the media took literally everything out of context. She dedicated the entire thing to him at the end.

She adamantly said Michael would never do what he was accused of, put the teasing into context, everything. It was great.

Never really had a doubt about Janet comin' through for Michael. Blessings to her and her little boy and to the entire family, which has been much maligned over the decades. All families have issues and grievances, but in certain cases, they get unjustly magnified.

As for the silly media, what else but propaganda and lies can be expected from the enemies of truth? Good to know this storm (in the teacup) has also passed.


It is not good for man to be alone (Ephesians 5:25-33)
 

Galactus123

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Donations
$8.00
Messages
5,157
Points
63
And in your views/opinion was it that Murray murdered Michael or did he give him too much or did he just walk away from monitoring the whole process?I didn't follow the trial for Murray back then, but was it neglect? Did we lose this amazing human being because of neglect of a "doctor"?
Yes. He probably did give him too much and he didn't monitor him when he should have. He went out of the room to talk on a phone for a long time.
 

CherubimII

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,534
Points
83
Just watched it tonight. It's great that Janet got to do a doc in her own words. Sadly MJ never really got the same opportunity. The scream studio footage was nice to see. That kind of footage should be in any History doc if it ever happens. Didnt know he did the full vocal in 1 take. Solid doc. Learned alot about Janet.
O.K Here's some more to learn about Janet Jackson:

Part 4 of Janet Jackson Documentary Utter Fiction, An Infomercial for Alternative Facts and Lies (Listen to New Song)

https://www.showbiz411.com/2022/01/...an-infomercial-for-alternative-facts-and-lies

by Roger Friedman - January 29, 2022 10:15 pm
0 1356

Now we know why there was no press link to part 4 of the Janet Jackson documentary. It was all fiction.

What an incredible and disappointing ending after the first two parts were pretty good, and the third part couldn’t hurt anyone.

But Part 4 skipped over Janet’s marriage to and divorce from billionaire Wissam El Mana, father of her child. His name was not uttered once. They must have quite an NDA. If you watch this chapter you’d think the little boy, Eissa, just materialized out of thin air.

Then there’s the matter of Janet’s abusive father whom she hated. She despised him so much I have a witness who was in the family kitchen with her in the 1980s when Janet came into the kitchen, pulled out a butcher knife, and had to be stopped from killing him.

In 2015, Joseph Jackson went to Brazil on a trip to basically get laid and not with nice women. He had a heart attack and two strokes and had to be retrieved from Sao Paolo. None of the kids would go, but Janet went and brought him back. It was reported everywhere, including in this column.

Really. I found the first evening of the documentary entertaining. But as it split from reality, I had to say something. Sorry, Michael Jackson fans.

There’s also no mention of the incredible family scandal of 2012 when some of Janet’s siblings “kidnapped” Katherine Jackson and took her to Arizona. They wanted Katherine’s inheritance from Michael. It was little Paris Jackson who ratted them all out. Janet was at the center of that. You will note that only Tito and Randy speak in the documentary. Jermaine, Marlon, Jackie, where are they? They are glaringly absent.

A huge omission from Part 1 when Janet claims James De Barge was the first love of her life. This is not true. Janet had a serious boyfriend, three years her senior, with whom she was madly in love. I have very good sources. Joseph broke the couple up because this kid, who was 19, would not become a Jehovah’s Witness. I know this man’s name and I’ve sent him a message. I won’t reveal him name unless he lets me. He’s 58 now, and doesn’t need the grief.

Oh, and let’s not forget Janet’s role in attacking Joseph Jackson’s mistress physically when their relationship was revealed. That’s when Janet found out she was not the youngest Jackson. They all have a younger half sister, Johvanni, who for years worked at McCarren Airport in Las Vegas while the other kids were living it up.

By the way, this was the Joseph Jackson who brought a Michael Jackson imitator with him to the 2009 BET Awards, seriously. I hung out with them. This was four days after Michael died.


One last thing tonight: The new song, Luv I Luv, played over the end credits. It was neither written nor produced by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. But one of the co-writers listed is Randy Jackson, Janet’s brother, who I see has feathered a nice nest for himself after nearly destroying Michael when he worked for him.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
O.K Here's some more to learn about Janet Jackson:

Part 4 of Janet Jackson Documentary Utter Fiction, An Infomercial for Alternative Facts and Lies (Listen to New Song)

https://www.showbiz411.com/2022/01/...an-infomercial-for-alternative-facts-and-lies

by Roger Friedman - January 29, 2022 10:15 pm
0 1356

Now we know why there was no press link to part 4 of the Janet Jackson documentary. It was all fiction.

What an incredible and disappointing ending after the first two parts were pretty good, and the third part couldn’t hurt anyone.

But Part 4 skipped over Janet’s marriage to and divorce from billionaire Wissam El Mana, father of her child. His name was not uttered once. They must have quite an NDA. If you watch this chapter you’d think the little boy, Eissa, just materialized out of thin air.

Then there’s the matter of Janet’s abusive father whom she hated. She despised him so much I have a witness who was in the family kitchen with her in the 1980s when Janet came into the kitchen, pulled out a butcher knife, and had to be stopped from killing him.

In 2015, Joseph Jackson went to Brazil on a trip to basically get laid and not with nice women. He had a heart attack and two strokes and had to be retrieved from Sao Paolo. None of the kids would go, but Janet went and brought him back. It was reported everywhere, including in this column.

Really. I found the first evening of the documentary entertaining. But as it split from reality, I had to say something. Sorry, Michael Jackson fans.

There’s also no mention of the incredible family scandal of 2012 when some of Janet’s siblings “kidnapped” Katherine Jackson and took her to Arizona. They wanted Katherine’s inheritance from Michael. It was little Paris Jackson who ratted them all out. Janet was at the center of that. You will note that only Tito and Randy speak in the documentary. Jermaine, Marlon, Jackie, where are they? They are glaringly absent.

A huge omission from Part 1 when Janet claims James De Barge was the first love of her life. This is not true. Janet had a serious boyfriend, three years her senior, with whom she was madly in love. I have very good sources. Joseph broke the couple up because this kid, who was 19, would not become a Jehovah’s Witness. I know this man’s name and I’ve sent him a message. I won’t reveal him name unless he lets me. He’s 58 now, and doesn’t need the grief.

Oh, and let’s not forget Janet’s role in attacking Joseph Jackson’s mistress physically when their relationship was revealed. That’s when Janet found out she was not the youngest Jackson. They all have a younger half sister, Johvanni, who for years worked at McCarren Airport in Las Vegas while the other kids were living it up.

By the way, this was the Joseph Jackson who brought a Michael Jackson imitator with him to the 2009 BET Awards, seriously. I hung out with them. This was four days after Michael died.


One last thing tonight: The new song, Luv I Luv, played over the end credits. It was neither written nor produced by Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. But one of the co-writers listed is Randy Jackson, Janet’s brother, who I see has feathered a nice nest for himself after nearly destroying Michael when he worked for him.

I had found a new found respect for her after the doc, well, part 1 and 2. I can't see 3 and 4 yet but is that stuff about the "kidnapping" really true? She appears so genuine and good hearted in the doc, but that is something I wouldn't call good, I'd call it very bad.

Also, wasn't Roger someone who used to talk lots of shit on Mike? We did talk about this recently, but what is the real source on all this?
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,008
Points
63
I had found a new found respect for her after the doc, well, part 1 and 2. I can't see 3 and 4 yet but is that stuff about the "kidnapping" really true? She appears so genuine and good hearted in the doc, but that is something I wouldn't call good, I'd call it very bad.

Also, wasn't Roger someone who used to talk lots of shit on Mike? We did talk about this recently, but what is the real source on all this?
Yes, unfortunately I have to admit that “ kidnapping” part is real. Janet, Randy, Jermaine, Tito and Rebbie were trying to take over Michael’s money by saying his Will wasn’t valid. Tito later took his name off of the scam they were trying to pull. Janet had her doctor tell Katherine that she needed “rest” and should go to a spa for rest and relaxation. Janet, Rebbie, Jermaine and the others took Katerine to some place and wouldn’t tell Michael’s children where she was. They also took Katherine’s phone and told her that sure didn’t need to take any calls. Paris became concerned because she hadn’t heard ANYTHING from her Grandmother in 10 days. None of Michael’s siblings would talk Tom Paris. They kept telling Michael’s children that Katherine was alright. Paris told them that she actually wanted to SEE and TALK to her grandmother. They ignored her and started spreading rumors that Paris was an out of control teenager.

There is so much more to this story that I would have to write 2 or 3 pages. The bottomline is that Janet and her siblings that I listed were trying to take over as guardians of Michael’s children by declaring Katherine as incompetent or not well enough to care for three kids. This was ALL OVER THE NEWS FOR WEEKS. Prince, Michael’s oldest son put a stop to the whole mess by screen shoting a call between Janet, Randy and Rebbie. He sent that screen shot to the media and it immediately shut down what Janet , Randy and the rest were doing. Not a single one of them came after Prince, like they did Paris. Prince also called them out publicly and said”My father always told us to watch out for certain people.” Prince specifically called out and highlighted Janet in his screen shot of the call.. Janet was actually telling her siblings to not tell Michael’s children where their grandmother was. It’s so much MORE to this, you wouldn’t believe if I went into every little detail.

I really don’t like Roger because he has always straddled the fence when it comes to Michael, However, this time he is telling the truth.
 

CherubimII

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,534
Points
83
Yes, unfortunately I have to admit that “ kidnapping” part is real. Janet, Randy, Jermaine, Tito and Rebbie were trying to take over Michael’s money by saying his Will wasn’t valid. Tito later took his name off of the scam they were trying to pull. Janet had her doctor tell Katherine that she needed “rest” and should go to a spa for rest and relaxation. Janet, Rebbie, Jermaine and the others took Katerine to some place and wouldn’t tell Michael’s children where she was. They also took Katherine’s phone and told her that sure didn’t need to take any calls. Paris became concerned because she hadn’t heard ANYTHING from her Grandmother in 10 days. None of Michael’s siblings would talk Tom Paris. They kept telling Michael’s children that Katherine was alright. Paris told them that she actually wanted to SEE and TALK to her grandmother. They ignored her and started spreading rumors that Paris was an out of control teenager.

There is so much more to this story that I would have to write 2 or 3 pages. The bottomline is that Janet and her siblings that I listed were trying to take over as guardians of Michael’s children by declaring Katherine as incompetent or not well enough to care for three kids. This was ALL OVER THE NEWS FOR WEEKS. Prince, Michael’s oldest son put a stop to the whole mess by screen shoting a call between Janet, Randy and Rebbie. He sent that screen shot to the media and it immediately shut down what Janet , Randy and the rest were doing. Not a single one of them came after Prince, like they did Paris. Prince also called them out publicly and said”My father always told us to watch out for certain people.” Prince specifically called out and highlighted Janet in his screen shot of the call.. Janet was actually telling her siblings to not tell Michael’s children where their grandmother was. It’s so much MORE to this, you wouldn’t believe if I went into every little detail.

I really don’t like Roger because he has always straddled the fence when it comes to Michael, However, this time he is telling the truth.
Somewhereinthedark, I thank you for confirming this. I remember these happenings as if it were yesterday.
I was very worried for Michael Jackson's children. I was so amazed and pleased to find out Prince was so resourceful.🤗
I have never been a Janet Jackson fan; but I don't wish her any ill will.
I just think she should publicly make amends to Michael Jackson's children.
 

Prometheus77

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
440
Points
18
I had found a new found respect for her after the doc, well, part 1 and 2. I can't see 3 and 4 yet but is that stuff about the "kidnapping" really true? She appears so genuine and good hearted in the doc, but that is something I wouldn't call good, I'd call it very bad.

Also, wasn't Roger someone who used to talk lots of shit on Mike? We did talk about this recently, but what is the real source on all this?
Yes. He was. He changed his tune a bit during the trial and didn't outright condem Michael, sometimes even defend him, but still, too many times where he outright trashed him. So I don't quite see why we are quoting him and should believe anything he says. As for that "granny-napping" thing, I guess there are 2 sides to every story and really, we only know one side.
 

CherubimII

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,534
Points
83
Yes. He was. He changed his tune a bit during the trial and didn't outright condem Michael, sometimes even defend him, but still, too many times where he outright trashed him. So I don't quite see why we are quoting him and should believe anything he says. As for that "granny-napping" thing, I guess there are 2 sides to every story and really, we only know one
There are NO SUCH THINGS AS ALTERNATIVE FACTS in "Granny Gate". :rolleyes:
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,008
Points
63
There are NO SUCH THINGS AS ALTERNATIVE FACTS in "Granny Gate". :rolleyes:
You are 100% correct. Btw, I don’t have to quote Roger Friedman I saw all of this unfold MYSELF. I saw the papers that Janet and her other siblings filed against the Estate. I saw the footage of Janet and Randy trying to block Prince and Paris from going into their own home. I saw Janet try to take Paris’ phone. I saw Janet and Randy start following Paris and snapping pictures. I saw the “ press conference” with Katherine held at an Arizona resort with Janet, Jermaine, Rebbie, Rebbies daughter and an employee of the resort HOVERING over Katherine reading a prepared statement. I was actually frightened for Katherine, because it seemed as if she was confused to what was really happening. EVERY Michael Jackson fan who saw what was happening was angry. Of course, you have those MJ fans who ignore anything Janet does, and were actually harder on his daughter, Paris, than they were on his sister who was trying to take control of his kids money. There was actually a court hearing because Katherine temporarily lost custody of Michaels
Children. The Estate also banned everybody who was involved in this scheme, from the house that they had purchased for Michael’s children and Katherine . Let me repeat what Cheribum said, “ There are no alternative facts when it comes to “Granny Gate”, and I don’t have to quote anything Roger Friedman says. I probably know more facts and details than he does.
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,008
Points
63
Somewhereinthedark, I thank you for confirming this. I remember these happenings as if it were yesterday.
I was very worried for Michael Jackson's children. I was so amazed and pleased to find out Prince was so resourceful.🤗
I have never been a Janet Jackson fan; but I don't wish her any ill will.
I just think she should publicly make amends to Michael Jackson's children.
Cheribum, I remember it as if it were yesterday,as well. I was also VERY worried for Michael’s children. I’m glad Prince spoke up, I’m also glad Michael’s nephews and the Estate intervened on their behalf. I actually felt that I was in the Twilight Zone when this happened. I couldn’t believe Janet was the ring leader of this farce. That’s when I lost all respect for her. I shudder to think what would have happened to Michael’s children physically and financially, IF their entire plan had come to fruition. 😒
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Thanks people, I just read all the replies. After Mike passed away I didn't pay attention to much of the news anymore, so I truly wasn't aware. I'm genuinely shocked, wtf man.

Long story short......cue Michael's song "Money", right? This is just crazy and I'm absolutely understanding more and more that Michael distanced himself from them after the trial. Even though they were there for him during that. Always about the freaking money, even so bad that they'd try all they can to even mess with their own mother..... disgraceful.
 

BlastFromThePast

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2022
Messages
31
Points
18
Yes. He was. He changed his tune a bit during the trial and didn't outright condem Michael, sometimes even defend him, but still, too many times where he outright trashed him. So I don't quite see why we are quoting him and should believe anything he says. As for that "granny-napping" thing, I guess there are 2 sides to every story and really, we only know one side.
Roger used to work for FoxNews and did all the Michael Jackson coverage. I will say this...the way he treated Jackson leading up to and at the beginning of the trial was standard Diane Diamond tabloid media. BUT, he did appear to be one of the few people who was actually willing to allow himself to have his mind changed based on the facts that emerged. He went into the trial assuming he was guilty, but I think as someone who was in the court room every day, he came to the realization it was a set up and started to wonder about assumptions he had made in the past. It appears he then did some more in depth research and has changed his mind about who he was as a person.

I wish he had not been the way he was to begin with, but I think he's actually a great example of someone willing to learn from their mistakes. Remember there was tremendous pressure from society at that time to assume Jackson was guilty. The large majority of people at that point in time (at least in the United States) bought it. The polls were something like 75 Guilty, 10 Innocent, 15 I don't know. That point was, by far, the hardest time to be a fan and defend him (not because it wasn't the right thing to do, but because there was SOOO MUCH misinformation and everyone's initial reaction was to believe it because of Bashir). Leaving Neverland was nothing on 2005, at least with LN we have social media and a wider array of filters with which people get news and the younger generation is far more open to someone acting like Michael Jackson and not being assumed guilty. After the initial backlash of LN, things cooled considerably and we are back in a good place. There were clearly a lot of people who wanted to defend MJ but didn't want to deal with all the crap of speaking against MeToo and calling alleged victims liars. But the overall beliefs of people was far more favorable than in 2005. My God, that was brutal. I cannot imagine how it must have made HIM feel. He helped save this kid's life and then he's put through that shit. It would be very easy to give up.
 

Prometheus77

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
440
Points
18
You are 100% correct. Btw, I don’t have to quote Roger Friedman I saw all of this unfold MYSELF. I saw the papers that Janet and her other siblings filed against the Estate. I saw the footage of Janet and Randy trying to block Prince and Paris from going into their own home. I saw Janet try to take Paris’ phone. I saw Janet and Randy start following Paris and snapping pictures. I saw the “ press conference” with Katherine held at an Arizona resort with Janet, Jermaine, Rebbie, Rebbies daughter and an employee of the resort HOVERING over Katherine reading a prepared statement. I was actually frightened for Katherine, because it seemed as if she was confused to what was really happening. EVERY Michael Jackson fan who saw what was happening was angry. Of course, you have those MJ fans who ignore anything Janet does, and were actually harder on his daughter, Paris, than they were on his sister who was trying to take control of his kids money. There was actually a court hearing because Katherine temporarily lost custody of Michaels
Children. The Estate also banned everybody who was involved in this scheme, from the house that they had purchased for Michael’s children and Katherine . Let me repeat what Cheribum said, “ There are no alternative facts when it comes to “Granny Gate”, and I don’t have to quote anything Roger Friedman says. I probably know more facts and details than he does.
Yes. I remember all of this too and still don't know 100% what to make of it, as we still don't have the full information. So whatever. I will never quote Friedman for anything connected with truth though.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
I just saw episode 3 of the doc. The parts where she talks about Scream and now they tried to separate her from Michael, to have it be like they are competing. Why? She said she wanted to be there for him, fight with him not battle him.

And then later where she says she and the rest of the family went to Michael's new house, his last one and people there too were very controlling of him, so sad. It's here where she says she offered to go on tour. So if this story is true, where does that leave the story about a intervention? Things don't add up.

She does appear very genuine whenever talking about Michael though. If the story about Katherine is true......it just seems so not like Janet to do that. Of course I'm only seeing a doc of her where she seems very caring, genuine and well meaning but that story is ugly.
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,008
Points
63
Yes. I remember all of this too and still don't know 100% what to make of it, as we still don't have the full information. So whatever. I will never quote Friedman for anything connected with truth though.
I never quoted Friedman for truth. I saw the Granny Gate play out for MYSELF. In fact, at the time this happened, I don’t think Friedman had much to say. Btw, what information do you need to know? This is not something that was made up by the media. This ACTUALLY happened. It has nothing to do with Roger Friedman. Members of Michael’s family tried to take over his children’s guardian ship, so THEY could control his money. Janet didn’t want her family bothering HER for money, so she thought she could take Michael’s money. She has never been the one supporting that family. Michael was the one who supported his family financially while was alive, and even in death through Katerine.
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,008
Points
63
I just saw episode 3 of the doc. The parts where she talks about Scream and now they tried to separate her from Michael, to have it be like they are competing. Why? She said she wanted to be there for him, fight with him not battle him.

And then later where she says she and the rest of the family went to Michael's new house, his last one and people there too were very controlling of him, so sad. It's here where she says she offered to go on tour. So if this story is true, where does that leave the story about a intervention? Things don't add up.

She does appear very genuine whenever talking about Michael though. If the story about Katherine is true......it just seems so not like Janet to do that. Of course I'm only seeing a doc of her where she seems very caring, genuine and well meaning but that story is ugly.
See I don’t like that part of her saying people were controlling Michael. No one was controlling Michael. He just didn’t want to go on tour with his family, at that time. They had been badgering him for MONTHS. They wouldn’t give him any peace. She knows and they all know why Michael didn’t want to see them. It makes me angry that she says Michael was being controlled. NOBODY controlled Michael. His bodyguards say Michael would tell them to not let Joe and Randy and Jermaine through the gates because they were the ones threatening to go to tabloids, IF Michael didn’t agree to tour. There was no one else at the house telling Michael what to do, This is just like the so-called “drug intervention” story SHE spread after he died, There was never a drug intervention. They were harrasing him to tour.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
See I don’t like that part of her saying people were controlling Michael. No one was controlling Michael. He just didn’t want to go on tour with his family, at that time. They had been badgering him for MONTHS. They wouldn’t give him any peace. She knows and they all know why Michael didn’t want to see them. It makes me angry that she says Michael was being controlled. NOBODY controlled Michael. His bodyguards say Michael would tell them to not let Joe and Randy and Jermaine through the gates because they were the ones threatening to go to tabloids, IF Michael didn’t agree to tour. There was no one else at the house telling Michael what to do, This is just like the so-called “drug intervention” story SHE spread after he died, There was never a drug intervention. They were harrasing him to tour.

Absolutely crazy, he couldn't even depend on his family. I then got a few questions.

Was it Bill Whitfield that said this about Joe, Randy and Jermaine going to tabloids otherwise?

And what kind of stories were they threatening with to give to tabloids? Michael didn't agree to tour, but it seems they didn't actually go to tabs, was just a loose threat?

Still, these same people did stand by him during the trial, going to the courthouse with him and being there in his home with him at that time. I'd really like to read up more on this but it sure as hell won't be anything from the media because I don't trust that at all. Do we have good, genuine, legit sources? My head is spinning about all this, especially so after having seen the doc.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Just saw the videos posted above, what a mess, Jesus. One thing can definitely be concluded from this and that it was a mess. Are Paris, Prince and Bigi even still in contact with Michael's brothers and sisters?
 
Top