Latest on MJJC

Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson Re: Channel 5 Autopsy Program

Cookie Monzter said:
I have written a letter of complaint to Channel 5. However, I doubt they will pay it any notice whatsoever. I have also advised them that I will escalate this complaint to Ofcom should they decide to proceed with the broadcast, due to the "documentary" being in poor taste, insensitive, medically inaccurate and against medical ethical principles, as a practicing doctor in the UK. I certainly plan to follow through with this and urge others to do the same.
Click to expand...


Yes, I made the same threat and will follow through. I also urge others to do the same.
If the show's description is anything to go by there will certainly be grounds to complain on the basis of accuracy as defined in the Editors Code.
 
The Director of Programmes at Channel 5 is called Ben Frow.

His email address is

Ben.Frow@five.tv

CONFIRMED: THIS IS THE EMAIL ADDRESS OF BEN FROW (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMES AT CHANNEL 5!)
I just received an email reply from him. Didn't say much of any use, but it's still good to know it's a valid email address.
It may be advisable to send your own emails ASAP in the next few hours!
 
Last edited:
Petrarose said:
If anyone wants the facts^^ you can get it from the autopsy and the coroner's 2 testimonies, so to say you are watching that show to get facts is not being honest. I think anyone who wants to look at the show, should simple say I am interested in something like this and I am going to watch it. There is no need to pretend that one's interest is about the great facts or to know what to say to people.
Click to expand...
Who are you calling dishonest? If you're referring to chrisc, he/she clearly makes out that the reason for watching the doc is so he can discredit it to his friends, not to learn about what happened to mj. So far we only have a brief synopsis which obv will be as dramatic as possible, you can't refute a doc if you don't watch it. For eg they seem to have jason on there, and mention of mj's lifestyle, i'm assumingn they're going to talk about his demoral dependence and try and tie it into his death, but i don't know that unless i watch it.

As long as noone gives them ratings (i believe ratings are done by a select xsection of the public so if you're not one of them it's ok) as that wd be harmful, people shd feel perfectly ok about watching it so they are better informed about the type of misinfo that is being put out there without being made to feel judged on here. I don't see the difference in watching this and for eg reading wade's complaint aboaut his 7yrs of abuse by mj - i dont read it to get the 'facts', i read it to see what is being alleged so i know what to refute. We seem perfectly happy to copy and paste ghastly tab articles even by people like ddimond, stacey brown, roger friedman etc on the grounds that 'we need to know what's out there'.

bobmoo79 said:
Yes, I made the same threat and will follow through. I also urge others to do the same.
If the show's description is anything to go by there will certainly be grounds to complain on the basis of accuracy as defined in the Editors Code.
Click to expand...

I suppose i might steel myself to watch it so i know what complaints to list. At least murray was still holed up in prison late last year to be able to contribute to this doc.
 
Last edited:
Yes it's wise to at least have an idea of what the inaccuracies were to be quite specific in the complaint.

The official ratings company (BARB) in the UK only record the viewing habits of those people selected to take part and who have one of the official boxes installed at their home.
So it's correct that official ratings figures will not be increased by anybody watching this programme as long as they do so by a means that is not monitored by BARB. If you do not have the equipment installed then you can watch the show.

BUT there are unofficial ways that TV providers can monitor viewers that do not contribute to official ratings but provide an indication of a show's success.

If you watch the show via Channel 5's online service then they WILL know you have watched it and could record it in the their statistics.
Also, it's technically possible for Sky, Virgin and BT/YouView to record the viewing figures for programmes watched and recorded on their boxes, although I'm not certain that they do.
If I was being really cynical I'd say that even if you wait for somebody to upload it to YouTube the Channel can know how popular it is by looking at the number of views, though I really doubt they'd bother.

The safest way to watch this is to use the standard terrestrial service (via your TV aerial on the roof) - nobody will know.
 
Last edited:
303180-good_tin_foil_hat.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
Who are you calling dishonest? If you're referring to chrisc, he/she clearly makes out that the reason for watching the doc is so he can discredit it to his friends, not to learn about what happened to mj. So far we only have a brief synopsis which obv will be as dramatic as possible, you can't refute a doc if you don't watch it.
Click to expand...

I am SO glad you're here :)

Some people on here really need to take some time reading people's posts before wading in. I've read the autopsy and I read the trial summaries. I'm not using this doc to 'get' any information. But this is supposedly a presentation of fact based information to the public at large on TV. The public that perhaps didn't seek out Michael's autopsy report online or were at saturation point by the time the papers covered it all those years ago. I'm interested as to how they'll do that. I mean, I come across people in everyday life who still swear blind that MJ simply made up that he had vitiligo!

I think the knee jerk reaction by some folk in here is that this is some kind of sick macabre front row seat of a man's body being dissected. If this show merely provides information on the content of the autopsy report, then it's no more 'sick' than the autopsy itself or the report by the coroner. That's the way I see it.
 
ChrisC said:
I am SO glad you're here :)

Some people on here really need to take some time reading people's posts before wading in. I've read the autopsy and I read the trial summaries. I'm not using this doc to 'get' any information. But this is supposedly a presentation of fact based information to the public at large on TV. The public that perhaps didn't seek out Michael's autopsy report online or were at saturation point by the time the papers covered it all those years ago. I'm interested as to how they'll do that. I mean, I come across people in everyday life who still swear blind that MJ simply made up that he had vitiligo!

I think the knee jerk reaction by some folk in here is that this is some kind of sick macabre front row seat of a man's body being dissected. If this show merely provides information on the content of the autopsy report, then it's no more 'sick' than the autopsy itself or the report by the coroner. That's the way I see it.
Click to expand...


No, the concern is the way in which the details will be presented.
The show's description suggests that this is not going to be done in an honest and fair way.
 
Does it really matter if it's honest or not? If there is truth or untruth? In my mind, one question stands above it all: would Michael want me, his fan, or any of us watch his autopsy, discuss and dissect its details? The answer to it is the answer to this programme. Even if it's perfectly honest and unbiased, showing it and watching it as an entertainment is in my book an act of disrespect to the person who is loved and admired.
 
Three hours long about MJ's autopsy? But most channels refuse to air a 2 hour concert or some footage that shows how good MJ was?
 
ChrisC said:
I think the knee jerk reaction by some folk in here is that this is some kind of sick macabre front row seat of a man's body being dissected. If this show merely provides information on the content of the autopsy report, then it's no more 'sick' than the autopsy itself or the report by the coroner. That's the way I see it.
Click to expand...
We all have different views of what is beyond the pale and what isn't, and i'm not keen on people making others feel guilty or uncomfortable about what they choose to do. I personally find the media firestorm about mj paying off dozens of boys to prevent them from accusing him of molesting them far more disturbing and upsetting than a doc on the causes of his death and being told he was 'riddled with arthritis', we're all different.

The programme is called mj's last hours, and i think their starting point is the coroner's report but i think they're planning on being more wide ranging than that so that will lead to the tabloid element i suppose. I wd be really interested in how they present murray in all this, the architect of all the f*ckery that happened as shown in the murray trial or just some innocent bystander a la aeg's view. Channel 5 are promoting this prog on the basis that they've got one of the top pathologists in the uk to present his findings, dr richard shepherd. Following the aeg trial and the legal stuff relating to the lloyds lawsuit I can see how these 'experts' can say such biassed things about a person's health/drug addictions etc just to fit into a case. This dr shepherd seems to have plenty of experience in presenting findings in court cases, and i'm sure the side he will be presenting on behalf of won't be a pro mj's side. The portrayal of mj in this ch5 doc i imagine will coincide with the one lloyds will be claiming in their lawsuit that of a mj at death's door, and the issues over mj's 'lifestyle' will be what aeg claimed in the aeg trial, a decades long drug addict.

Dr Richard Shepherd

Dr Shepherd is the leading forensic pathologist in the UK. He is a Visiting Professor at City University London, Honorary Consultant at The Royal Liverpool Hospital and a registered UK Home Office Forensic Pathologist.

He was sent to New York to advise on the management of UK fatalities following 9/11 and to Bali following the bomb attack on the Sari Club. He was also the forensic pathological expert for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and the Inquiry and Inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed.

He has recently provided the Attorney General with a review of the forensic pathological aspects of the death of Dr David Kelly, a scientist employed by the British Ministry of Defence and formerly a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq.

He also worked on the controversial Rachel Nickell murder case in the UK.

Dr Shepherd has been involved in the investigation of natural, suicidal and homicidal deaths on behalf of both the defence and prosecution for more than 25 years and has experience in the field of deaths in custody and during restraint.
Click to expand...

If this dr shepherd is outrageously biased in his findings on mj, i'll start treating all the conspiracy rumours about david kelly's death with more respect.
 
Last edited:
Asking myself; Why for heavens sake people would like to watch tv shows like this? not only because of Michael but I mean about anyone? is this entertainment? what a bad taste people have these days :(
 
@Pentum No, not the actual autopsy, I don't know how they will set it all up but I presume they are working from these celebrities official autopsy reports.
 
LastTear said:
@Pentum No, not the actual autopsy, I don't know how they will set it all up but I presume they are working from these celebrities official autopsy reports.
Click to expand...
Oh, thank God. I thought for a second they were actually going to show footage from the autopsy (which I assume is filmed, because it's MJ). We already have a couple of pictures from it.

Sickening anyway.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
Who are you calling dishonest? If you're referring to chrisc, he/she clearly makes out that the reason for watching the doc is so he can discredit it to his friends, not to learn about what happened to mj.


I don't see the difference in watching this and for eg reading wade's complaint aboaut his 7yrs of abuse by mj - i dont read it to get the 'facts', i read it to see what is being alleged so i know what to refute. We seem perfectly happy to copy and paste ghastly tab articles even by people like ddimond, stacey brown, roger friedman etc on the grounds that 'we need to know what's out there'.
Click to expand...

Bonnie Blue said:
Following the aeg trial and the legal stuff relating to the lloyds lawsuit I can see how these 'experts' can say such biassed things about a person's health/drug addictions etc just to fit into a case. This dr shepherd seems to have plenty of experience in presenting findings in court cases, and i'm sure the side he will be presenting on behalf of won't be a pro mj's side. The portrayal of mj in this ch5 doc i imagine will coincide with the one lloyds will be claiming in their lawsuit that of a mj at death's door, and the issues over mj's 'lifestyle' will be what aeg claimed in the aeg trial, a decades long drug addict.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hopefully this airing will repeat that Michael was healthy and was not participating in any addiction when he passed as per his autopsy report.

I wd be really interested in how they present murray in all this, the architect of all the f*ckery that happened as shown in the murray trial or just some innocent bystander a la aeg's view.
Click to expand...

Michael passed only because of negligent administration of propofol however, I sincerely doubt this is the position that will be taken by this professional. There is no benefit to that truth.
 
Last edited:
The experts & reconstructions in this documentary are so cheesy
 
Bad cheesy, plus they keep showing to same two photos of him passed away from the trial
 
Glad I'm not wasting my time then, I mean, what for? Many of us already read the autopsy report and we didn't have the problem of bring biased and not truthful.
 
It's more of a big reanactment of his last hours, with a Conrad Murray lookalike who really does look like him
 
windy09 said:
Yes anyone who watches ior records will only be giving Channel 5 the ratings they are looking for.
Click to expand...

If you are watching it on regular TV and you are not registered for submitting TV rating info it does not matter if you watch it or not.

Check out how TV ratings are generated. There are a couple of thousand people in every coutry who all have a special box connected to their TV which records the info what channel they watch for how long. The data from those people is then roughly projected up to the whole country / available target group ...and that's TV ratings.

not sure how this works if you watch it over the internet (internet stream tv if they have that)... might be different there.
 
Electro said:
If you are watching it on regular TV and you are not registered for submitting TV rating info it does not matter if you watch it or not.

Check out how TV ratings are generated. There are a couple of thousand people in every coutry who all have a special box connected to their TV which records the info what channel they watch for how long. The data from those people is then roughly projected up to the whole country / available target group ...and that's TV ratings.

not sure how this works if you watch it over the internet (internet stream tv if they have that)... might be different there.
Click to expand...

Yes I just read about Nielsen ratings. I did not know how this was done. Thank you for clarifying. So for the small subset of people that watch this and after the statistics are extrapolated from the sample and estimated the number of viewers in the entire population, this could still receive the attention that it does not deserve.
 
Actually I think the documentary was truthful and destroyed rumours, and apart from showing the photos a few times it was perfectly fine. Im Surprised people are being so negative before actually watching it
 
jimbean said:
The experts & reconstructions in this documentary are so cheesy
Click to expand...

I've always noticed that reconstructions related to MJ are always so cheesy and terrible. I remember there was this 2004 'documentary' called... Man in the Mirror? Idk. It featured this really bad actor who was probably only hired cos he sounded somewhat similar to MJ and oh god. I had to turn it off because it was so cheesy.
 
HIStoric said:
I've always noticed that reconstructions related to MJ are always so cheesy and terrible. I remember there was this 2004 'documentary' called... Man in the Mirror? Idk. It featured this really bad actor who was probably only hired cos he sounded somewhat similar to MJ and oh god. I had to turn it off because it was so cheesy.
Click to expand...

''DON'T YELL AT ME!''

That was hilarious
 
How are they going to reconstruct his last hour if even Muarry is not truthful about that. Maybe they have an actor for Muarry telling his lies about speaking the truth.
 
I wonder if they'll make Murray look really sympathetic
 
Pentum said:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202673962121017 A fan calls Channel 5, worth listening, he serves the receiver
Click to expand...

Wow. I support the guy and applaud him for taking a stand, but he was unnecessarily disrespectful and came off quite uneducated.

1. Why is he being so disrespectful to the man taking the call? Insulting him by calling him as sick as the people who put the show together? The guy isn't responsible for the making or airing of the program - it's just like insulting a waitress because the chef served you crap food. The waitress didn't make you the food, sure be pissed but at least show some respect to another human being. Hell, the guy likely has no power what so ever in regards to the airing of the program and the only way you could affect the airing is if a large number of people called in.

2. The MJ fan had failed to do his research and didn't believe the representative when he stated that MJ was the first in a series. Granted the representative should've been able to inform the MJ fan that it was also being done specifically on Whitney Houston and Anna Nicole Smith, the MJ fan should've also done his research. By failing to do so, he came off rather uneducated when he ripped into the guy.

It is understandable that he is angry and I'm not annoyed at him for being angry, but if Michael was able to still show respect to Eminem even after the dissing in Just Lose It, then this fan can follow MJ's teachings and demonstrate the same respect to the Channel 5 customer service representative. You can be angry and still maintain respect at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top