Latest on MJJC

Katherine Jackson Interview Monday on " Piers Morgan Tonight"

JACKSON: Well, I'm pleased and I'm concerned at the same time because I didn't -- I don't think that Michael would wanted her to be out there this soon. But she wanted it so badly and she kept saying, please, grandma, I want this. You know? And so it was something she really wanted so I just gave in and said OK.
Click to expand...


Don't believe that for a second. Did someone tweet paris and say, there's a 5 film franchise in produciton based on an unknown book about jellyfish etc, would you like to be the star? This film was obviously presented to paris by members of her family, i think the contact was larry king. Mrs j is just deflecting justified criticism that paris is too young to be getting involved in this 5yr movie project, and putting the whole responsibility for it onto paris's shoulders. Not nice.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
Don't believe that for a second. Did someone tweet paris and say, there's a 5 film franchise in produciton based on an unknown book about jellyfish etc, would you like to be the star? This film was obviously presented to paris by members of her family, i think the contact was larry king. Mrs j is just deflecting justified criticism that paris is too young to be getting involved in this 5yr movie project, and putting the whole responsibility for it onto paris's shoulders. Not nice.
Click to expand...
Don't forget about that dinner Katherine and Paris had sometime around the 2nd anniversary of MJ's passing at Larry King's house. Wasn't this Dennis guy at this dinner also. That's why it came across as if Paris was sought out by these folks to do this film.

And what Katherine said is word for word what some of the tabloids said after news about this movie 1st came out, so obviously there was some sort of campaign back then to try to make Katherine not look so bad.
 
^I think that dinner was actually on 25 june and yes i remember seeing dennis there in a photo with paris.

walkingonthemoon said:
Do we know for a fact if BLS still "owns" the art? When this whole issue first became public, the whole report was about an auction where Howard Mann and the owner of Cirque were supposed to be the main bidders but allegedly both were trumped by a "mystery international buyer". So I wonder if the sale happened already or if the estate managed to put a stop to it?
Click to expand...

The transfer of copyrights to mj's art over to bl strong is part of the estate v tohme lawsuit which is going on now, but it seems mrs j has jumped the gun and is acting like the art belongs to her and bls. I suppose if they actually start selling it, the estate cd step in. Pity piers and his minions on his chat show cdn't have done some background on who their guests are and asked some probing questions about it all.
 
She's in her 80's now, so maybe one of the last Interviews! Katherine did a good job representing her faith. "Man In The Mirror" is her favorite and she brought out how Michael had messages in his songs, including "Earth Song." Katherine is also looking forward to seeing Michael in the resurrection and that Earth is doomed. Brett said that Michael had a house already picked out in Las Vegas called "Wonderland." So I can see why the Wedding Chapel monument made sense. After all Las Vegas is the number 1 wedding capital on earth why not be a part of that. He will be immortal.

Katherine did hit the nail on the head with how much the allegations made against him by Jordy Chandler H U R T Michael. I don't think Michael ever quite recovered from that. Then for it to happen a second time was so traumatic. It was good to hear how Grace helped Katherine feel better that Michael was happy, even after 2005, with his children to remind Michael of innocent times again. He truly was the greatest Entertainer who ever lived and like his Mom said, Michael was down to earth. A humble man and meek, too, and he shall inherit the earth!
wenn2417540.jpg
May 15, 2009
 
justnat said:
I will not post a link in this forum, it was in the Daily Mail, they talked to Ray.

Here is a quote:
Click to expand...

The Jordan confession theory is a hoax, no doubt, however I also doubt that Jordan communicates much with Ray and that Ray is entitled to speak on his behalf.

Jordan was almost killed by Evan in 2005. Jordan seeked a final restraining order against Evan (he was granted a temporary one) for both Evan's attempt to kill him and also for Evan stalking and harassing him. Jordan did not attend Evan's funeral when he died. And Ray was very close to Evan and was kind of his spokesman in the media and was in it with him. So somehow I doubt Jordan has a close relationship with his uncle who enabled the things Evan did.
 
respect77 said:
The Jordan confession theory is a hoax, no doubt, however I also doubt that Jordan communicates much with Ray and that Ray is entitled to speak on his behalf.

Jordan was almost killed by Evan in 2005. Jordan seeked a final restraining order against Evan (he was granted a temporary one) for both Evan's attempt to kill him and also for Evan stalking and harassing him. Jordan did not attend Evan's funeral when he died. And Ray was very close to Evan and was kind of his spokesman in the media and was in it with him. So somehow I doubt Jordan has a close relationship with his uncle who enabled the things Evan did.
Click to expand...

You're right.

Here is a full quote:
"Q (Daily Mail): There have been all these reports saying that Evan and Jordy had retracted [the abuse allegations].
A (Ray): Well, I can tell you there has been no retraction. My brother always maintained that his son was molested."

His brother always maintained .., and his nephew?
 
Last edited:
ascolto said:
You're right.

Here is a full quote:
"Q (Daily Mail): There have been all these reports saying that Evan and Jordy had retracted [the abuse allegations].
A (Ray): Well, I can tell you there has been no retraction. My brother always maintained that his son was molested."

His brother always maintained .., and his nephew?
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's interesting.
 
That is why rather than talk about meeting her son again, which happens when we are all dead, in response to the allegation issue she should bring out the facts about how this plan was developed to shakedown money from Michael. She should also include the information from his friends. Sometimes I am so tempted to get it all together and mail it to Calabassas or wherever she lives. Maybe that should be one of our projects for Michael's birthday.

I have to admit that I am bitter because people who do not know how to bring the facts about the allegations to the public, are always being given a forum to talk about it on TV. Life can be so unfair at time.
 
It's frustrating so see them respond to those questions. Instead of giving certain facts they give stories they heard without verifying its authencity. It's simple, when questions about the accusations arise they just have to mention the facts on both cases. For the Chandler case they can mention the telephone convo between Chandler & Schwarts, more important they can mention that Michael wanted to go with the criminal phase first. For the Arvizos have so much ammunition to go with, but they chose not to. How about the change of the molestations dates, the Arvizos leaving & returning to Neverland when they --according to them-- were being sequestered. There's so much to tell, but i don't understand why they don't do it. They say, her son/brother is innocent, like if they word would suffice, but they don't talk about the facts about those two cases. I understand Katherine is in advanced age, but I think she can memorize certain facts. Seems to me that if they're not well informed, they shouldn't talk about it.
 
Aquarius said:
It's frustrating so see them respond to those questions. Instead of giving certain facts they give stories they heard without verifying its authencity. It's simple, when questions about the accusations arise they just have to mention the facts on both cases. For the Chandler case they can mention the telephone convo between Chandler & Schwarts, more important they can mention that Michael wanted to go with the criminal phase first. For the Arvizos have so much ammunition to go with, but they chose not to. How about the change of the molestations dates, the Arvizos leaving & returning to Neverland when they --according to them-- were being sequestered. There's so much to tell, but i don't understand why they don't do it. They say, her son/brother is innocent, like if they word would suffice, but they don't talk about the facts about those two cases. I understand Katherine is in advanced age, but I think she can memorize certain facts. Seems to me that if they're not well informed, they shouldn't talk about it.
Click to expand...

Yeap I have come to the conclusion that they do not mention it because they never took the time to get the information and understand it from top to bottom. This shows how much they care about clearing their brother's name. Every single TV appearance they attend the topic comes up, so why not prepare for those in advance. There is only one answer and that is that they couldn't care less. It is easier to do what does not involve much work. I have come to the conclusion that Michael's name will never be cleared by ma/pa/siblings.
 
Petrarose said:
Yeap I have come to the conclusion that they do not mention it because they never took the time to get the information and understand it from top to bottom. This shows how much they care about clearing their brother's name. Every single TV appearance they attend the topic comes up, so why not prepare for those in advance. There is only one answer and that is that they couldn't care less. It is easier to do what does not involve much work. I have come to the conclusion that Michael's name will never be cleared by ma/pa/siblings.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's extremely frustrating. And you know, I came to the conclusion that this is why Michael is such an easy target for the media and bullies: because they know that no one is really gonna defend him in an effective way (well, apart from T-Mez). And it's not that he doesn't have the facts on his side, because he does. It's just that his relatives and so called friends care more about money, self-promotion etc than about looking up those facts and put some effort in research. I have to say at least in Jermaine's book there seems to be some genuine effort (eg. him talking to Joy Robson etc.) but the rest of the family just couldn't care less. It's very sad but Michael really only had his kids and his fans, no one else.
 
The Brown Gangsta said:
considering his role in further sensationalizing those 93 allegations, i wonder if piers felt like a piece of crap as he sat there watching KJ cry over how unfairly her son was treated because of that lie. it would have been decent of him to personally (and publicly!) apologize for what he did to her son.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what did he do exactly? Did he badmouth Michael? Did he publicly ridicule him? I don't know anything about it...
 
Back in April, 2009, when Michael halted the Julienne auction of his possessions, I thought he should show them at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas and his Dad could manage the whole affair. He lives down the street.

I still think that Michael's Artwork should be shown the same way and not dealt with in a fight over how much it is worth (i.e. Thome Thome giving it away).

I understand the need for money and all and the public can personally own a piece of Michael, but I still think as a regular showing, money could still be made.

snn2711q-280_853815a1.jpg
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
I'm sorry, but what did he do exactly? Did he badmouth Michael? Did he publicly ridicule him? I don't know anything about it...
Click to expand...

Piers is a uk tabloid editor from the 90s, of news of the world and later the daily mirror so as you can imagine he was in the vanguard of ridiculilng mj. More specifically he claimed he saw mj behaving inappropriately with jordan chandler on front row of the world music awards. Only 'remembered' this after the allegations broke, and he was therefore able to 'insert' himself into the big tabloid feeding frenzy which happened in '93. I wonder if he felt guilt listening to mrs j talking about the toll left on mj by those allegations - somehow i doubt it, piers just would see it as part of his job, selling newspapers, ignoring the effect his stories would have on actual lives.

Haven't a clue why people think he's a mj fan just because he interviews loads of jackson family members. He even admitted in this interview that his 8 yr old son had never heard of mj until he died, so clearly piers hadn't been passing down his alleged love of mj's music.
 
@Ashtanga---Wasn't he such a handsome man, and this just before he died at the age of 50 going on 51 years of age!

Call this a day in the life of Michael Jackson...May 15, 2009




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top