This is the first part of, I guess, a three part blog. I started this part first, so it’s first. No other reason.
When I first started talking about how I might write a blog about anything pertaining to the AEG trial, one of the things that people asked me about the most was about the text messages that Karen Faye (KF) had sent to her boyfriend in June 2009. There seems to be two separate issues that people have questioned– the first about what they said and why they matter and the second about what AEGs reaction to them was and why. I will try to explain both of these things to the best of my knowledge/understanding.
This paragraph was initially at the END of this blog. But, I think it would fit better at the beginning:
“This blog was not written to "defend" Karen. She doesn't need any defense on this issue IMO, but that isn't the issue either. I am very much aware that some of those who see things a different way than I do talk about how "biased" I am and how because of my friendship with Karen, I cannot be "trusted". Well...it's true that Karen and I are friends. It's also true that friends or not, I would not compromise my integrity to write anything that was a lie in order to defend anyone. But, even beyond that...everything I have written here is factual. Everything can be verified (except for my opinions of course.) So...with the knowledge that these facts are actually facts...YOU decide what conclusion to come to. Who I am friends with is irrelevant.”
First – the text messages themselves. What they say and why they matter.
The text messages in question were sent by KF to her boyfriend on the evening of June 18 2009 into June 19 2009. The texts themselves are available for anyone to see, but I will summarize quickly:
-MJ was hours late for rehearsal on June 18.
-“[MJs] fear is big. He needs a 24/7 therapist.”
-Kenny Ortega (KO) was angry that night.
-KF was told by KO that KO, Randy Phillips (RP), Conrad Murray (CM) and MJ had held a meeting of some kind – or an “intervention”.
-KO told KF that “AEG (Randy Phillips) is funding [MJs] entire life right now. His house, food, kids school, everything.”
-They told MJ that they will “pull the plug” [on the TII show] if MJ “doesn’t get his shit together”.
-“If he doesn’t do this, he loses everything...probably even his kids.”
-“[MJ] came in ‘very serious’” that night [the 18th]
-“Any ‘hand holding’ has been removed. [MJ] has to be forced to face his fears.”
*the ONLY thing that I added or changed at all was to specify who she meant when she said ‘he’ a couple times. (which was all confirmed by Karen.)
So, now that we know what they say – why do they matter?
First of all, some of these points are things that KF has said for a long time already. But, when the information comes in this form, it becomes more accurate for two reasons.
First: we must look at these texts as what they are – not “evidence” in a lawsuit, not someone on a certain “side” of an issue trying to prove or back up their point – they are just text messages that someone sent to their boyfriend while they were at work, telling him about her day. Nobody, including AEGs attorneys, have questioned this. (Yes, AEGs attorneys questioned the texts in a different way and actually, in a sense, the way that they did almost back up what I am saying now – if you bear with me, I will explain.) We all text our boyfriends, girlfriends, family, BFFs, whatever and talk about our days and that is all that Karen was doing – so to question the accuracy of what she said in the messages does not really make a whole lot of sense. There was obviously no reason for Karen to lie to her boyfriend about what she was experiencing in her day.
Secondly, regarding accuracy, the fact that these texts were written during the time period when MJ was in rehearsals does not only make it unlikely that someone would be “lying” but also, nobody had to rely on their memory to share this information. It is one thing for someone to remember details years later – it is another to have a record of what someone said or thought during the actual time.
So, two things are then removed – the question of “is this person remembering correctly?” AND the question of “is this person being dishonest to achieve a certain result?”
By the way, does anyone remember how many times KF said she had been told to be quiet and stay off the internet and to “cease and desist”?
As for the information in these text message – that shows us a few things:
1. That MJ was very dependent on these shows. If we know that AEG is funding much of his life, of course MJ needed these shows to work out.
3. KO told us about a meeting between himself, RP, CM and MJ that took place on June 20 2009. These texts were sent on June 18 and 19 2009 and they talk about a meeting or “intervention” between KO, RP, CM and MJ. (As an fyi, which you may feel free to believe or not, I am aware that KO also told KF where he was going BEFORE he went to this “meeting”. It didn’t just come up later on as a side mention. There WAS a meeting.)
The reason that point 3 is so interesting is that we have never heard KO or RP admit to having two meetings in three days. They have also said, particularly RP, that their interactions with CM were minimal. So, then... would this meeting on June 18 be something that they didn’t and don’t want anyone to know about?
We have heard denials (and may “I don’t recall’s) about any threats made in regard to ‘pulling the plug’. This IS something that KF did state happened as far back as 2009 and these text messages show us when and how she learned about this – KO told her. If they had a meeting on that day to make those ‘threats’ (or whatever word you'd choose to call them), then it seems likely that they would not have wanted anyone to know about said meeting.
We also know that on June 20th, KO wrote an email to RP expressing his doubt that MJ was “ready”, physically or emotionally, and that MJ was having trouble “grasping the work” at rehearsals. RP replied “please stay steady. Enough alarms have sounded. It is time to put the fire out, not burn the building down.” Hours before KO emailed RP, production manager ‘Bugzee’ also emailed RP expressing his own doubt – AND telling RP that KO had sent MJ home from rehearsal on the 19th. (According to RP himself, by “burn the building down”, he meant “pull the plug” on the shows.)
At court, RP testified that he just wanted to keep the situation calm until they could have their meeting. But... according to these texts, they’d already had a meeting BEFORE KO sent that email. Two days earlier.
Nobody denies that the meeting on the 20th happened. KO said that at that meeting CM told him to stay in his lane and to not be an amateur doctor or psychologist. It is interesting, if that is in fact what happened, because RP had basically told him in his email to “stop sounding alarms” (“enough alarms have sounded”) which basically means “be quiet'... then they all met again that evening... and CM told him to be quiet as well.
(FYI, there was also a 25 minute phone conversation that happened between RP and CM that day...which RP claims to have no memory of and only remembers talking to him for two minutes about scheduling.)
Whatever they talked about with each other or why they said whatever they said is not the point of this blog...but it is interesting, I think.
After learning all of this, I think that it is safe to say that nobody wants to publicize their June 18th meeting. It is also safe to say that they strongly deny threatening MJ or holding things over his head
It is also interesting how, prior to these texts “coming out”, KO has vehemently denied UNDER OATH in CM’s trial, sharing that sort of information with KF, to the point where he not only said that he DIDN’T share it – but stated that he WOULD NEVER have shared it. These do tell a differently story...
As for AEGs reaction and response to these texts...
First of all – just to clarify. There have been people who have been saying that AEG told the judge that “Karen Faye fabricated these texts messages”. That is not accurate. At no point did AEG tell the judge that Karen fabricated the messages. But they did challenge them.
These texts were brought to the courts attention by Brian Panish, the Jackson's lead attorney on this case. I have also heard people say that they "sprung" the texts on the defense and therefore the defense had no time to prepare to "defend against them". That is completely untrue. Firstly, these texts never entered evidence nor did anyone attempt to enter them into evidence. Therefore, there was nothing to "spring"...the jury wasn't going to hear them, so there was nothing to prepare for.
There is also the argument that the timing of when these texts “appeared” was “suspicious”, that Karen had been subpoenaed beforehand to turn over all relevant information she had and she did not turn over those texts until then. So, again, to explain...
Sometime between 2009 and 2013 (you know... four years.), Karen got a new phone. At some point, during the trial, she happened to come across her old phone and decided to go through some things on it. That is when she found the texts. She saw the relevancy of them and therefore gave them to the lawyers when she found them. Then the lawyers took it from there, however they saw fit.
Once they were introduced to the court (though not into evidence), THEN both sides discussed them. It was at that time that AEGs attorneys began to challenge them.
Clarification: after it was suggested to me that this might be misunderstood, I want to explain: the texts were not attempted to be brought into evidence (see attorneys arguments September 9th), but they WERE talking about being able to read from them or have Karen read from them. Again, hearsay laws prevented that. I did not mean to imply they had no intent of using them - just not admitting them into evidence... and again, had they done so, the texts would have been tested for authenticity. Also, yes, the defendants did have only a short time to respond to the motion - because of when the texts were found. I also did not mean to imply there was zero work for them to do.
While researching and confirming these things, I also found the following:
Deborah Chang: I just want to state this for Karen Faye, because I think a lot of bad things have been said on the record. As an officer of the court, I went to get the phone from her. I asked her "can you show me how you retrieved all this?" It was the most tedious thing. She had to go all the way back to 2009 and scroll down. There was no fabrication of evidence there. I saw - it must have taken her days to go back that far. And so, with respect to that, I feel - especially since she so gladly went over and said 'do any forensic analysis that you want to do', but it is degrading, it is humiliating.
They referenced Karen not being "credible" due to the fact that she had misrepresented evidence before referring to emails between herself and Frank Dileo (FD) that had been read and discussed in court. The defense lawyers claimed that KF had been selective in what she chose to share, pointing out that there was another email between KF and FD that had not been turned over by KF. They claimed that this email "contradicted" some of the things KF had said in her testimony and that this was why she had "chosen not to disclose it".
The email they are referring to is one that KF sent FD on June 23. The email said "yippee, everything is great".
My assumption is that the reason the lawyers said that this contradicted KFs some of previous testimony is because, obviously, things were not "great" according to her own words.
That's true. Nothing was great. However, when you put things into proper context, you realize nothing was contradictory about it. KF has always said that on June 23 and June 24, MJ performed substantially better. So, an email saying "everything is great" sent on the 23rd fits perfectly fine within that story. Should she perhaps have said "everything is much better than it has been but still not nearly where it needs to be"? Sure, if she was concerned with exactly how her words would be interpreted in a lawsuit later, I suppose that would have been "better"...but she didn't know that. She was just sending an email expressing relief that things improved so much on that day. And again, that fits with the information she has stated since 2009.
Did she purposely hide the email? I can tell you she didn't even remember it existed until she saw it after that point but why believe me? So, instead, I will just point out how, again, it did not contradict her testimony....it actually didn't even contradict ANYTHING she's said since 2009 - we already knew those two days were substantially better. So...why would she hide it? Why would she want to? It just doesn't make any sense.
AEGs attorneys also mentioned Karen's "lack of trustworthiness" based on the fact that she didn't get along with some people involved with the "This Is It" shows. Whether or not someone gets along with a group of people or not has nothing to do with if they can be trusted - and certainly in a situation like this one, it doesn't. Is it even really a surprise that KF "wouldn't get along" with some of the people that were involved with TII at this point anyway? We have seen for ourselves that Karen has been something of an “obstacle” for them...of course they didn’t like her. Of course they STILL don’t like her.
The third and apparently most interesting way that AEG challenged KFs texts was discussing the possibility of them being fabricated. Again, nobody said "KF fabricated texts". What they suggested was that it is "easy" to change dates on iPhone text messages and "because of KFs past behavior of being selective with evidence" (referencing the FD email), they believed it was possible that she had done so. That she had actually sent the text messages in 2013 and changed the date to make it seem like she'd sent them in 2009.
Well.
I have absolutely no idea if it is easy to change the dates in text messages like that. I don't know how to do it...but obviously that doesn't mean it can't be done. But let's look at this situation realistically.
First, KF is the one who found them and handed them over to the lawyers to do with them what they thought was right. When AEG suggested this "possibility" of fabrication, KF was more than willing to leave her phone with them and have them do whatever they needed to do with it. She did not fight it. In fact, it was Deborah Chang, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys who suggested how insulting it was to have to "validate" these messages - not KF. She wasn't a part of the discussion nor did she care to be.
Second, the reason the AEG claims there was cause to do this, was because, again...they claimed KF was "selective" with evidence, due to the fact that this email "contradicted" her testimony. But, the email did not contradict her testimony, therefore there is no reason to suggest or believe she purposely tried to "hide" it. Essentially, while the idea of "fabricating" text messages is an interesting one and those fans who seemingly do not trust KF have found the idea appealing to discuss, apparently...in reality, there is just no reason to believe that that is what happened. A lawyer can suggest anything...that does not mean what they suggest is true. It does not even mean that they themselves believe what they are saying. In the legal world, a lawyer is not doing their job if they do not try everything.
Please, also see, the plaintiffs attorneys statement I posted just above this where she explains what she herself saw with the texts and the phone.
Due to the laws of evidence and “hearsay” laws, the texts were never introduced into evidence – nor did the plaintiffs end up attempting to have them admitted into evidence. That had nothing to do with any accusations of fabrication or irrelevancy.
So...why did AEG come up with all this?
First of all, as I said, they did not and could not challenge the texts because of their content. If Panish had chosen to try to admit them into evidence, they would have gone through the tests and they would have come back as legitimate and that would have been that. That would not have been able to be argued. The content of the messages, though...that they could argue all the way until the end. There is no simple test to check honesty. So, don't you think that if AEG thought, for one second, that they had any shot at selling the idea that KF was lying in those texts that they would have just done that? Had these text messages ended up in evidence, they knew their claims of "fabrication" would not have held up. The only thing that "sending them to the lab" would accomplish is that it would delay when they would be able to be used and cause some extra work and time - perhaps the plaintiffs would end up deciding they just weren't worth it. Delay tactics are extremely common in the courtroom.
I believe that they saw, just as anyone can see, that text messages sent between someone and their boyfriend, just talking about their day, just can't be sold as manipulative lies that would be used to support a side in a lawsuit four years later. So, I believe AEG pulled out all the stops - "she's not trustworthy, some people don't like her, it's easy to change dates on text messages"...because they knew that everyone would know that what she said in them was exactly how things were going down.
So, why did AEG work so hard at arguing against these texts? Why do they care so much? Was there something in them they didn't care for people to see? Things about how in control they were? About how they essentially threatened MJ? About this meeting with CM they had on the 18th?
I believe that AEG saw the same things I do...that these messages take things to a new level - when one is not relying on a four year old memory or making statements in the midst of a legal battle. I absolutely believe that the content of these text messages combined with those things is what AEG did not want to get out.
Of course you do not have to agree with me. I only intended to answer the question I was asked many times. What you take away from it is up to you.
Come to your own conclusions, ask questions, and THINK. Obviously, MJ is VERY important to ALL of his fans. It pays to have all the information, doesn’t it? And you can feel free to question or challenge anything I say too – it is much smarter than just dismissing it, isn’t it? If you want all the facts? You are always free to believe or disbelieve whatever you choose in the end. Questioning and wondering is a posit
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
sticks & stones
You know, for a long time I said nothing. I just watched, as the cruelty, the judgement and the "hate" began unfolding - again. (For a fanbase of a man so about "love", there's sure a LOT of hate...). But, see, then I got into that annoying position again. You know the one... where people are being so incredibly nasty and rude, not telling the truth, throwing so much negativity and hate out there and other people just letting it all happen or mindlessly agreeing or in some cases just yelling back... not productive. So, being who I am which is unable to stay out of things like this because they simply aren't right.... I got to this point again. The one where I have to point some things out. If you haven't yet figured it out, I am, of course, talking about Lisa Marie Presley.
In the past little while especially (basically since she started promoting Storm & Grace and got a little bit more accessible on Twitter.), the hate has been overflowing. You all don't need me to tell you what I'm talking about, you know what I'm talking about. And if you don't, then good. Lucky you and kudos for having no crazy in your life. ;) I originally had no intention of making this long, but apparently it got that way anyway. I know it will take some time, but please, read it if you are one of the people I am referring to. I know that there are going to be some people that aren't happy with me after this and that's unfortunate but the way I work is I need to stand up for what I believe in...that's not new....and that's what I did here. You all take your own paths. But please, give what I say a chance. I'm no more an "expert" on anything than you are. I'm in the same place you are.
STORM & GRACE
The album sucks
Well, actually, no it doesn't suck. I, for one, absolutely love it. Nor do I believe that the majority of YOU think it sucks. It seems an awfully big coincidence that all the people who have a "problem" with Lisa also don't like her music. From past experience, I would say it's a safe bet that half of you downloaded the album from SOMEHWERE and actually like it a lot, but heaven forbid you should say that. And maybe some of you really don't like it, that's fine, there's not one person or album that is universally liked... but before you insult someones art, someones music that they put their heart into, perhaps you should think about how that makes YOU look. You are not decreasing the quality of her album by talking shit, you are simply telling your like minded friends how much you hate it so you can be accepted by them. Tell the truth... what would happen if you said you liked it? But who are you helping by lying? And, again, if you have listened and you really don't like it, who are you helping by saying you hate it THEN?
The whole album is about Michael
Oh, okay. Again, listen to it then let's talk again. No, it is not. I'm not saying he doesn't show up anywhere, but really, the whole album is certainly not about him and you know what? Even if it was (which again, it isn't)....in what way does that affect you? In what way would it hurt him? In what way would it be your business? Alright then.
"THE NOTE"
Lisa gave it to Juliens herself to keep herself in the news
Oh, dear. When I first heard this, I legitimately thought people were joking. It makes THAT little sense. First of all, the "news" does not cover Julien's auctions. If she wanted to, er, "keep herself in the news" by giving a completely benign letter to someone, she'd give it TO the media. Second of all, again, "benign note". You don't think if she decided to somehow use Michael to get herself media attention, she'd have a better way of doing it then a note that innocent? That's a little silly, people. IF she was resorting to that, which by the way I promise you she isn't, she has more at her disposal than that note. Really now. And this thing about Lisa forging it? Oh my goodness, people, honestly. Listen to yourselves......what are you saying?
That note proves that Michael just wanted to get away from her
You see, guys, things like this is when I HAVE to believe that ignorance is happening on purpose because what else could it be? Did you write the note? Were you there that day? Okay then. Enough said.
Now let's get to all the stuff that gets everyone the most excited...
SHE SAID AND SHE DID AND THEN SHE SAID...
But, she said stuff about Michael.
She sure did. How many of you have ever talked about your ex? Anyone? Everyone? Oh, but wait. Your ex's aren't Michael. You're not doing it on TV. Right... I get it. But see, here's a few things that if you actually want to be balanced open minded people on this, you really should take into consideration.
She felt what she felt
That's the first thing y'all need to understand. Whatever she felt, whether it was true or not, it was her truth at that time. I am not going to tell you what she felt, I am not her. But she told you. You REALLY need to understand that in order to carry on here. She FELT what she felt.
We weren't the third party in their marriage
Was what she felt valid? I think it was, because I think anyones feelings at any given time are valid, but I dcon't know that everything she felt was the ultimate reality. You know who knows that? The two of them together. Her. And he knew that. And everyone else in the entire world that sits there and judges and picks it apart and has for the last 15 or so years needs to understand that. Yes, Michael fans love Michael. I know that. I love him too. But, you have to understand that being his fan, even his friend, is not the same as being married to him. In ANY marriage, there are two people that will experience things that only the two of them will ever truly understand because they are the only ones that were THERE. Not one other person can understand. I am so confused as to how people can sit there and judge her so harshly, telling people what she thought, why she did things, why she felt things... what on earth are you talking about? How on EARTH are you telling people why she did - what she thought - what she really meant - huh? Guys... we. weren't. there. Michael was wonderful and fabulous and I understand the fierce need to defend him, but you are not defending him by pretending to be able to know the inner details of a marriage that he was in. You are not defending him by inventing things to fill the gaping holes of what we DON'T know. You are not defending him by insulting his ex wife (or her current husband or her children - her CHILDREN? A+, Michael approves, I'm sure. Hello.) I'm not saying he was "the bad guy". I'm saying, I don't think there was one. I think the marriage ended. And that's not our business. So, that's another thing that needs to be understood before we go into "but she said....". Before we can attempt to understand the aftermath, we need to understand that we don't understand the marriage. As much as we love him, we don't know him as she did and they obviously both did things that contributed to the good and the bad. Okay? Okay.
Yes, she said- and she did - and she - I know
I watched the interviews too. There is no disputing that she said some things. But, let's take a step back for a second. Remember the two points I just made - she was feeling what she was feeling - and we weren't in the marriage so we don't know what actually went down between them. Now, let's put ourselves in her position. We feel whatever she felt and things didn't work out and we're doing an interview about, whatever we're doing an interview about, and every. single. time. his name comes up. FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. "Why did you marry Michael Jackson?" "What happened with Michael Jackson?" "Tell us about the divorce." "Do you think he - " "Why did he - ". Every time. There are interviews where she clearly said "I'm not talking about him.". There are interviews where she passively reacts. And then, yes. There are those interviews where she said some things that weren't the nicest things in the world I'm not saying it's awesome that she said them. I'm saying - he is not Michael Jackson to her like he is to us. He is her ex husband. And she's not happy. And she feels - again whatever she felt. And she reacted. And was it the best choice, no I imagine it wasn't. And just as we don't know what she was feeling then, we don't know what she's feeling now. Do you intend to punish her for the rest of her life for not saying the nicest things all the time about her ex husband years ago? I really think that one of the biggest problems here is the misrepresentation of Michael - and it's one that's not fair to him either. He wasn't perfect. He was a human being. He breathed air, he walked and talked, he got sad and happy and angry, he did stupid shit just like the rest of us.
It is your decision if you choose to hold onto this anger forever. But understand this - you are not doing Michael any favors. I understand the intention, I do, because in, say, 2003, I probably would've - well, I wouldn't have said the shit I've seen, but I would understand feeling hurt on his behalf. But, now it's 2012. Lisa has done a lot of self reflection and chose, though she did not have to, to share that with us in her 2010 interview with Oprah. People evolve and people learn. And Lisa did that. And then she moved forward while still holding on to memories. And that is what we all need to do for ourselves. We aren't helping anyone, least of all Michael, by judging things we don't understand, by throwing out negative energy (that by the way, she isn't catching so it's just staying with you. Do you see her acknowledging you? No.), by doing the exact opposite of what he stood for and spreading hate.
Michael called his fans his soldiers of love. It's time to start living up to the name. Think of all the time and energy you've spent hating Lisa and what good you could have done in that time. Let her go. You don't have to be a fan, but let it go. (Although she's pretty cool. You could do worse. I proudly dispute the nonsense going around that you can't love Michael and be a fan of Lisa - I'm doing it right now.). I'm not asking you to love her. I'm asking you, that if your goal is truly to defend Michael, to do what he'd want, to stand for him - then DO that. This isn't doing that. I know that the intention (from some anyway.) is to stand up for him, I get it......but it's gone well beyond that now. This is not okay. Lisa is a human being, not a tv character and the hate is out of control. You are not being fair. We can not judge what we do not understand.
I'll leave you with this... this is off of Storm & Grace btw... and ask that please... if you can't get past this for whatever reason, then at least let go of the negativity. You're hurting yourself and, frankly, doing what you've been doing as some kind of service to Michael is actually doing him a disservice. Think about it.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_MilZRtmFU
www.twitter.com/neverletyoupart
In the past little while especially (basically since she started promoting Storm & Grace and got a little bit more accessible on Twitter.), the hate has been overflowing. You all don't need me to tell you what I'm talking about, you know what I'm talking about. And if you don't, then good. Lucky you and kudos for having no crazy in your life. ;) I originally had no intention of making this long, but apparently it got that way anyway. I know it will take some time, but please, read it if you are one of the people I am referring to. I know that there are going to be some people that aren't happy with me after this and that's unfortunate but the way I work is I need to stand up for what I believe in...that's not new....and that's what I did here. You all take your own paths. But please, give what I say a chance. I'm no more an "expert" on anything than you are. I'm in the same place you are.
STORM & GRACE
The album sucks
Well, actually, no it doesn't suck. I, for one, absolutely love it. Nor do I believe that the majority of YOU think it sucks. It seems an awfully big coincidence that all the people who have a "problem" with Lisa also don't like her music. From past experience, I would say it's a safe bet that half of you downloaded the album from SOMEHWERE and actually like it a lot, but heaven forbid you should say that. And maybe some of you really don't like it, that's fine, there's not one person or album that is universally liked... but before you insult someones art, someones music that they put their heart into, perhaps you should think about how that makes YOU look. You are not decreasing the quality of her album by talking shit, you are simply telling your like minded friends how much you hate it so you can be accepted by them. Tell the truth... what would happen if you said you liked it? But who are you helping by lying? And, again, if you have listened and you really don't like it, who are you helping by saying you hate it THEN?
The whole album is about Michael
Oh, okay. Again, listen to it then let's talk again. No, it is not. I'm not saying he doesn't show up anywhere, but really, the whole album is certainly not about him and you know what? Even if it was (which again, it isn't)....in what way does that affect you? In what way would it hurt him? In what way would it be your business? Alright then.
"THE NOTE"
Lisa gave it to Juliens herself to keep herself in the news
Oh, dear. When I first heard this, I legitimately thought people were joking. It makes THAT little sense. First of all, the "news" does not cover Julien's auctions. If she wanted to, er, "keep herself in the news" by giving a completely benign letter to someone, she'd give it TO the media. Second of all, again, "benign note". You don't think if she decided to somehow use Michael to get herself media attention, she'd have a better way of doing it then a note that innocent? That's a little silly, people. IF she was resorting to that, which by the way I promise you she isn't, she has more at her disposal than that note. Really now. And this thing about Lisa forging it? Oh my goodness, people, honestly. Listen to yourselves......what are you saying?
That note proves that Michael just wanted to get away from her
You see, guys, things like this is when I HAVE to believe that ignorance is happening on purpose because what else could it be? Did you write the note? Were you there that day? Okay then. Enough said.
Now let's get to all the stuff that gets everyone the most excited...
SHE SAID AND SHE DID AND THEN SHE SAID...
But, she said stuff about Michael.
She sure did. How many of you have ever talked about your ex? Anyone? Everyone? Oh, but wait. Your ex's aren't Michael. You're not doing it on TV. Right... I get it. But see, here's a few things that if you actually want to be balanced open minded people on this, you really should take into consideration.
She felt what she felt
That's the first thing y'all need to understand. Whatever she felt, whether it was true or not, it was her truth at that time. I am not going to tell you what she felt, I am not her. But she told you. You REALLY need to understand that in order to carry on here. She FELT what she felt.
We weren't the third party in their marriage
Was what she felt valid? I think it was, because I think anyones feelings at any given time are valid, but I dcon't know that everything she felt was the ultimate reality. You know who knows that? The two of them together. Her. And he knew that. And everyone else in the entire world that sits there and judges and picks it apart and has for the last 15 or so years needs to understand that. Yes, Michael fans love Michael. I know that. I love him too. But, you have to understand that being his fan, even his friend, is not the same as being married to him. In ANY marriage, there are two people that will experience things that only the two of them will ever truly understand because they are the only ones that were THERE. Not one other person can understand. I am so confused as to how people can sit there and judge her so harshly, telling people what she thought, why she did things, why she felt things... what on earth are you talking about? How on EARTH are you telling people why she did - what she thought - what she really meant - huh? Guys... we. weren't. there. Michael was wonderful and fabulous and I understand the fierce need to defend him, but you are not defending him by pretending to be able to know the inner details of a marriage that he was in. You are not defending him by inventing things to fill the gaping holes of what we DON'T know. You are not defending him by insulting his ex wife (or her current husband or her children - her CHILDREN? A+, Michael approves, I'm sure. Hello.) I'm not saying he was "the bad guy". I'm saying, I don't think there was one. I think the marriage ended. And that's not our business. So, that's another thing that needs to be understood before we go into "but she said....". Before we can attempt to understand the aftermath, we need to understand that we don't understand the marriage. As much as we love him, we don't know him as she did and they obviously both did things that contributed to the good and the bad. Okay? Okay.
Yes, she said- and she did - and she - I know
I watched the interviews too. There is no disputing that she said some things. But, let's take a step back for a second. Remember the two points I just made - she was feeling what she was feeling - and we weren't in the marriage so we don't know what actually went down between them. Now, let's put ourselves in her position. We feel whatever she felt and things didn't work out and we're doing an interview about, whatever we're doing an interview about, and every. single. time. his name comes up. FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. "Why did you marry Michael Jackson?" "What happened with Michael Jackson?" "Tell us about the divorce." "Do you think he - " "Why did he - ". Every time. There are interviews where she clearly said "I'm not talking about him.". There are interviews where she passively reacts. And then, yes. There are those interviews where she said some things that weren't the nicest things in the world I'm not saying it's awesome that she said them. I'm saying - he is not Michael Jackson to her like he is to us. He is her ex husband. And she's not happy. And she feels - again whatever she felt. And she reacted. And was it the best choice, no I imagine it wasn't. And just as we don't know what she was feeling then, we don't know what she's feeling now. Do you intend to punish her for the rest of her life for not saying the nicest things all the time about her ex husband years ago? I really think that one of the biggest problems here is the misrepresentation of Michael - and it's one that's not fair to him either. He wasn't perfect. He was a human being. He breathed air, he walked and talked, he got sad and happy and angry, he did stupid shit just like the rest of us.
It is your decision if you choose to hold onto this anger forever. But understand this - you are not doing Michael any favors. I understand the intention, I do, because in, say, 2003, I probably would've - well, I wouldn't have said the shit I've seen, but I would understand feeling hurt on his behalf. But, now it's 2012. Lisa has done a lot of self reflection and chose, though she did not have to, to share that with us in her 2010 interview with Oprah. People evolve and people learn. And Lisa did that. And then she moved forward while still holding on to memories. And that is what we all need to do for ourselves. We aren't helping anyone, least of all Michael, by judging things we don't understand, by throwing out negative energy (that by the way, she isn't catching so it's just staying with you. Do you see her acknowledging you? No.), by doing the exact opposite of what he stood for and spreading hate.
Michael called his fans his soldiers of love. It's time to start living up to the name. Think of all the time and energy you've spent hating Lisa and what good you could have done in that time. Let her go. You don't have to be a fan, but let it go. (Although she's pretty cool. You could do worse. I proudly dispute the nonsense going around that you can't love Michael and be a fan of Lisa - I'm doing it right now.). I'm not asking you to love her. I'm asking you, that if your goal is truly to defend Michael, to do what he'd want, to stand for him - then DO that. This isn't doing that. I know that the intention (from some anyway.) is to stand up for him, I get it......but it's gone well beyond that now. This is not okay. Lisa is a human being, not a tv character and the hate is out of control. You are not being fair. We can not judge what we do not understand.
I'll leave you with this... this is off of Storm & Grace btw... and ask that please... if you can't get past this for whatever reason, then at least let go of the negativity. You're hurting yourself and, frankly, doing what you've been doing as some kind of service to Michael is actually doing him a disservice. Think about it.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_MilZRtmFU
www.twitter.com/neverletyoupart
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Turning anger into a career? Pearl Jr and her motivations.
For quite awhile now, Pearl "Jr" (not her real name, but it doesn't matter.) has been pushing her "ebook/movie" and how Michael Jackson faked his death. And, of course, that's not true and is ridiculous and all that... but what I kept getting stuck on was why Pearl was doing this.
Why would a seemingly respectable journalist throw away her credibility by using Michael's death and a grieving group of fans just to make a quick buck? She's made a mockery of herself in her profession, profited off of peoples grief... why?
Pearl knows Michael is dead. She was at the hospital on June 25th. She wrote the foreword for a book of letters saying good bye to him.. she knows. And yet, she suddenly decided to do a 180 and prey on those in his fan base who were in despair and unwilling to come to terms with the fact that he was really dead. WHY? Things like "cash" have been suspected... that she took the only road that a struggling journalist hadn't taken before just to make some money... but that never seemed right to me. And why did she do things like launch these insane stories about Karen Faye and seem so focused on hating her? She had no reason to hate her (other than that she was telling a different story - like, the truth.), let alone to make up absolutely horrible accusations and stories about her. It just didn't make sense. She didn't get cash for her Karen lies, did she? (Although, to be fair, she did include some idiotic story in her ebook which she charged for... but you know what I mean.)
There still seemed to be something missing, but because I hadn't the faintest idea what it could be, I just shrugged it off and went with "crazy" like everyone else did.
But, then the other day, I came across this blog that Pearl had written. And some thoughts entered my head. These are thoughts that ANYONE who has bought her product, talked to her, worried about anything she said, or cares about Michael, should have the opportunity to read. This isn't me attacking Pearl. This is serious.
Since I've read the blog, I've started to think that perhaps there is more to it than money.
The link to the blog is as follows: (If it is no longer up, let me know. I have screen caps in case she decides to take it down.)
http://pearljr.livejournal.com/330.html
The title of the entry is "Integration Equals Another Racism!"
To summarize, it is, in my opinion, an INCREDIBLY racist rant about the horrors of Black men being with White women. Now, I understand that this is the way some Black women (and probably Black men) feel. It is no different (as long as it's not taken to a different level like it was by Pearl) than people wanting their children to marry someone in their own race or religion... it's just the way some people feel. And for some reason, some people also seem to feel that racism does not apply if it is directed at white people. FYI? That's not true. A blog supporting Black women? Fantastic. I'll read it AND share it. But a blog such as this one that puts down White women by saying how awful it is for a Black man to be with them? That's not okay. Imagine the reaction if a white woman posted a blog about how horrible it was for white men to be with Black women. That would be disturbing. This was no less disturbing. It was incredibly racist, period send. And, yes, I'm a white woman calling a black woman racist. And if that offends any one of you, I'm sorry. But white people can be discriminated against too. They can be hurt too. And they are not immune from racism or suppression, in several cultures.
Now, please let me be clear:the African American community has CERTAINLY suffered from discrimination from White society along with other minorities. I do not and never would dispute that fact. But this... this was clearly much more personal.
But, really, you'll need to read the blog yourself to understand the ranting I just did. And probably the rest of this blog.
So, we have Pearl writing racist articles... but that's not the only point. Let's take a look at some of the stuff that REALLY caught my eye:
In her words;
"Due to the alarming trend of too many Black men abandoning their racial responsibilities in regards to being the provider and the protector of the Black race family, I have vowed to NOT purchase any products by any Black man that is currently spending my money on making sure his non-Black wife/woman lives comfortably. Heck, White men do a good enough job that White women don’t NEED our men to do what their men are most capable of doing. "
Black men have racial responsibilities to marry Black women? Wow. But, okay, let's look a little closer at the second part... Pearl has vowed to NOT purchase any products by any Black man that is currently married or dating a White woman. Hm.
She then went on to say:
"As I pondered about telling the truth about a few high profile powerful Black men, I realized that I pay their bills and they don’t pay mine. I am no longer supporting them either by watching them on TV or in movies, buying their records, supporting any products they promote, or contributing anything to someone who doesn’t care about my feelings or my plight as a Black woman, which inevitably includes their own Black daughters."
Then she gives some examples:
"~ Tiger “Cablasian” Woods married a White nanny. Now, we all know if a Black female nanny was just as beautiful as that White woman, he would have never given her a chance. A sistah would need to have a couple of MBA’s, Ph.d’s, MD’s and a trust fund to even be considered. My bad! Nothing would probably help because his words tell me he HATES his Blackness.
~ Kobe Bryant had a myriad of Black girls crying when in an interview he yelled, “you see this ring you can’t have me”, and then was caught on some secret trip to Colorado cheating on his Latino-set for life-wife with a White girl hostess that worked in a hotel lobby who now lives in a mansion, drives a luxury car, and has all the diamonds Kobe’s money can buy because he couldn’t resist the temptation of a 19 year old White girl.
Furthermore, I heard Charles Barkley bragging about him and his White wife hanging with Tiger and his White wife, and Tony Parker with his non-Black girlfriend, Eva Longoria, at a golf course having a wonderful time pretending racism doesn’t exist because they are interracially loving. But in reality their cult to dismiss Black women is the newest form of racism. Do you think these non-Black women want any sistahs around reminding Black men that we need them and their resources because we are dying without them? Hell No! Further influencing these men to pretend Black women and Black race issues are irrelevant in their lives by telling them that race doesn’t matter and they are so glad that racism is over."
Now, let's ignore the obvious ridiculousness in what she's saying as a whole and focus on how this relates to the subject at hand.
Whatever you feel about Lisa Marie and Debbie, hear me out. Pearl has just made her opinion of Black men who date White women (AND of those white women) very clear. They are "not meeting their responsibilities", they are "racist", they are "part of a cult to dismiss Black women.".
Michael Jackson was married twice. Both times? To WHITE WOMEN.
Pearl does not like Black men who are with White women and she does not like the White women that are with the Black men.
Suddenly, I have more questions. Is creating (or at the very least promoting and making it a FAR bigger thing than it was) the death hoax a way of reaping some sort of revenge or getting some of "her" money back from Michael?
Pearl is using a dead Black man (who's only public romantic relationships were with White women.), disrespecting him on the worst levels possible by acting as if he's still alive, heartlessly running around leaving "clues", not caring about the grief that the world was and still is feeling. Pearl is making money off of this "theory". She acts as though she was a fan of his, likely to connect with the fans, but this article written well before Michael died, clearly shows that that's unlikely.
And let's look at Karen Faye for just a second. Take away your own thoughts about how Karen's this or that, about how Karen's my friend... and look at the FACTS. Karen used to be married to a very successful Black man herself. Karen is a White women. (Not that she wasn't successful on her own, but evidently that doesn't matter.) Pearl knows that Karen was married to this man. And Pearl despises Karen for reasons no one can make sense of, anytime someone's asked she just lies about something else.
Of course, Karen also worked for and had a close friendship with one of the most amazing Black men on the planet. The same man who Pearl would look at as "a Black man who chose White women".
And, again. Pearl despises Karen for reasons still unknown.... no one had a clue. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe we do have a clue.
So wait a second. Is anyone else pausing? This woman essentially said that Black men who are with White women are doing something wrong - look at it any way you want to, but she's included Michael in that. He is a Black man that was married to (and had BABIES with) white women. (Note, I am not here to debate anyones paternity. Don't even start on that shit, so help me. Whatever your opinion, it's irrelevant and highly disrespectful to both Michael and his children to discuss it.).
Are we really to believe that Pearl's beliefs and convictions are not connected to her disrespectful behavior in Michael's death? That there is no connection?
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb for a second and get personal. I am a white woman. And I am hurt and offended by this blog she wrote. To say that a Black man is doing something wrong by dating a White woman or marrying one? I find it BEYOND racist and offensive. And incredibly degrading and unfair to any Black man. Do you think Pearl would have an issue with a Black woman dating a successful White man? Somehow I doubt it. People are people and despite Pearl's opinion, love has EVERYTHING to do with it. Everyone is entitled to choose what they want, but how DARE she say that EITHER a Black man OR a White woman is doing something WRONG if they fall in love. And let me tell you, if you don't think this applies to Michael too (in her head), I beg of you to read it again.
I know many Black men with wonderful Black women by their side - and many with wonderful women by their side that aren't Black. Just as I know many Black women who have wonderful Black men with them and Black women with wonderful men that are not Black who stand with them. And what all of these couples have in common is LOVE. Who tells people what race they should love? Who says it's not okay to love someone of a different race? What kind of person? Sure reminds me of white supremacists. Race purification? Is this different from saying that white people with blonde hair and blue eyes should only be with white people with blonde hair and blue eyes? Why is this any more acceptable than that? Why is this point of view okay on any level? This kind of thinking is dangerous and based on fear and anger.
And not only is this an attack on Michael in the sense that he is the exact person who she is referring to in her blog, butt is also exactly the opposite of all of the things that he stood for. I think he'd be horrified by this. Michael spoke so openly from the bottom of his heart about his love for all races, for all religions.... for all PEOPLE.
So.... she takes a famous Black man who goes against the things that she apparently believes... one who strongly and loudly believed in the exact opposite of her agenda and uses his death and his grieving fans to make a quick buck by saying that he FAKED his DEATH?
The way I see this, after reading that blog, is this is a direct, vindictive, vengeful, disrespectful attack on Michael, on his family and on his fans by a woman who obviously had a problem with the way he chose to live and love. Once again I ask.... on what possible level is this okay?
Clearly, it isn't.
Why would a seemingly respectable journalist throw away her credibility by using Michael's death and a grieving group of fans just to make a quick buck? She's made a mockery of herself in her profession, profited off of peoples grief... why?
Pearl knows Michael is dead. She was at the hospital on June 25th. She wrote the foreword for a book of letters saying good bye to him.. she knows. And yet, she suddenly decided to do a 180 and prey on those in his fan base who were in despair and unwilling to come to terms with the fact that he was really dead. WHY? Things like "cash" have been suspected... that she took the only road that a struggling journalist hadn't taken before just to make some money... but that never seemed right to me. And why did she do things like launch these insane stories about Karen Faye and seem so focused on hating her? She had no reason to hate her (other than that she was telling a different story - like, the truth.), let alone to make up absolutely horrible accusations and stories about her. It just didn't make sense. She didn't get cash for her Karen lies, did she? (Although, to be fair, she did include some idiotic story in her ebook which she charged for... but you know what I mean.)
There still seemed to be something missing, but because I hadn't the faintest idea what it could be, I just shrugged it off and went with "crazy" like everyone else did.
But, then the other day, I came across this blog that Pearl had written. And some thoughts entered my head. These are thoughts that ANYONE who has bought her product, talked to her, worried about anything she said, or cares about Michael, should have the opportunity to read. This isn't me attacking Pearl. This is serious.
Since I've read the blog, I've started to think that perhaps there is more to it than money.
The link to the blog is as follows: (If it is no longer up, let me know. I have screen caps in case she decides to take it down.)
http://pearljr.livejournal.com/330.html
The title of the entry is "Integration Equals Another Racism!"
To summarize, it is, in my opinion, an INCREDIBLY racist rant about the horrors of Black men being with White women. Now, I understand that this is the way some Black women (and probably Black men) feel. It is no different (as long as it's not taken to a different level like it was by Pearl) than people wanting their children to marry someone in their own race or religion... it's just the way some people feel. And for some reason, some people also seem to feel that racism does not apply if it is directed at white people. FYI? That's not true. A blog supporting Black women? Fantastic. I'll read it AND share it. But a blog such as this one that puts down White women by saying how awful it is for a Black man to be with them? That's not okay. Imagine the reaction if a white woman posted a blog about how horrible it was for white men to be with Black women. That would be disturbing. This was no less disturbing. It was incredibly racist, period send. And, yes, I'm a white woman calling a black woman racist. And if that offends any one of you, I'm sorry. But white people can be discriminated against too. They can be hurt too. And they are not immune from racism or suppression, in several cultures.
Now, please let me be clear:the African American community has CERTAINLY suffered from discrimination from White society along with other minorities. I do not and never would dispute that fact. But this... this was clearly much more personal.
But, really, you'll need to read the blog yourself to understand the ranting I just did. And probably the rest of this blog.
So, we have Pearl writing racist articles... but that's not the only point. Let's take a look at some of the stuff that REALLY caught my eye:
In her words;
"Due to the alarming trend of too many Black men abandoning their racial responsibilities in regards to being the provider and the protector of the Black race family, I have vowed to NOT purchase any products by any Black man that is currently spending my money on making sure his non-Black wife/woman lives comfortably. Heck, White men do a good enough job that White women don’t NEED our men to do what their men are most capable of doing. "
Black men have racial responsibilities to marry Black women? Wow. But, okay, let's look a little closer at the second part... Pearl has vowed to NOT purchase any products by any Black man that is currently married or dating a White woman. Hm.
She then went on to say:
"As I pondered about telling the truth about a few high profile powerful Black men, I realized that I pay their bills and they don’t pay mine. I am no longer supporting them either by watching them on TV or in movies, buying their records, supporting any products they promote, or contributing anything to someone who doesn’t care about my feelings or my plight as a Black woman, which inevitably includes their own Black daughters."
Then she gives some examples:
"~ Tiger “Cablasian” Woods married a White nanny. Now, we all know if a Black female nanny was just as beautiful as that White woman, he would have never given her a chance. A sistah would need to have a couple of MBA’s, Ph.d’s, MD’s and a trust fund to even be considered. My bad! Nothing would probably help because his words tell me he HATES his Blackness.
~ Kobe Bryant had a myriad of Black girls crying when in an interview he yelled, “you see this ring you can’t have me”, and then was caught on some secret trip to Colorado cheating on his Latino-set for life-wife with a White girl hostess that worked in a hotel lobby who now lives in a mansion, drives a luxury car, and has all the diamonds Kobe’s money can buy because he couldn’t resist the temptation of a 19 year old White girl.
Furthermore, I heard Charles Barkley bragging about him and his White wife hanging with Tiger and his White wife, and Tony Parker with his non-Black girlfriend, Eva Longoria, at a golf course having a wonderful time pretending racism doesn’t exist because they are interracially loving. But in reality their cult to dismiss Black women is the newest form of racism. Do you think these non-Black women want any sistahs around reminding Black men that we need them and their resources because we are dying without them? Hell No! Further influencing these men to pretend Black women and Black race issues are irrelevant in their lives by telling them that race doesn’t matter and they are so glad that racism is over."
Now, let's ignore the obvious ridiculousness in what she's saying as a whole and focus on how this relates to the subject at hand.
Whatever you feel about Lisa Marie and Debbie, hear me out. Pearl has just made her opinion of Black men who date White women (AND of those white women) very clear. They are "not meeting their responsibilities", they are "racist", they are "part of a cult to dismiss Black women.".
Michael Jackson was married twice. Both times? To WHITE WOMEN.
Pearl does not like Black men who are with White women and she does not like the White women that are with the Black men.
Suddenly, I have more questions. Is creating (or at the very least promoting and making it a FAR bigger thing than it was) the death hoax a way of reaping some sort of revenge or getting some of "her" money back from Michael?
Pearl is using a dead Black man (who's only public romantic relationships were with White women.), disrespecting him on the worst levels possible by acting as if he's still alive, heartlessly running around leaving "clues", not caring about the grief that the world was and still is feeling. Pearl is making money off of this "theory". She acts as though she was a fan of his, likely to connect with the fans, but this article written well before Michael died, clearly shows that that's unlikely.
And let's look at Karen Faye for just a second. Take away your own thoughts about how Karen's this or that, about how Karen's my friend... and look at the FACTS. Karen used to be married to a very successful Black man herself. Karen is a White women. (Not that she wasn't successful on her own, but evidently that doesn't matter.) Pearl knows that Karen was married to this man. And Pearl despises Karen for reasons no one can make sense of, anytime someone's asked she just lies about something else.
Of course, Karen also worked for and had a close friendship with one of the most amazing Black men on the planet. The same man who Pearl would look at as "a Black man who chose White women".
And, again. Pearl despises Karen for reasons still unknown.... no one had a clue. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe we do have a clue.
So wait a second. Is anyone else pausing? This woman essentially said that Black men who are with White women are doing something wrong - look at it any way you want to, but she's included Michael in that. He is a Black man that was married to (and had BABIES with) white women. (Note, I am not here to debate anyones paternity. Don't even start on that shit, so help me. Whatever your opinion, it's irrelevant and highly disrespectful to both Michael and his children to discuss it.).
Are we really to believe that Pearl's beliefs and convictions are not connected to her disrespectful behavior in Michael's death? That there is no connection?
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb for a second and get personal. I am a white woman. And I am hurt and offended by this blog she wrote. To say that a Black man is doing something wrong by dating a White woman or marrying one? I find it BEYOND racist and offensive. And incredibly degrading and unfair to any Black man. Do you think Pearl would have an issue with a Black woman dating a successful White man? Somehow I doubt it. People are people and despite Pearl's opinion, love has EVERYTHING to do with it. Everyone is entitled to choose what they want, but how DARE she say that EITHER a Black man OR a White woman is doing something WRONG if they fall in love. And let me tell you, if you don't think this applies to Michael too (in her head), I beg of you to read it again.
I know many Black men with wonderful Black women by their side - and many with wonderful women by their side that aren't Black. Just as I know many Black women who have wonderful Black men with them and Black women with wonderful men that are not Black who stand with them. And what all of these couples have in common is LOVE. Who tells people what race they should love? Who says it's not okay to love someone of a different race? What kind of person? Sure reminds me of white supremacists. Race purification? Is this different from saying that white people with blonde hair and blue eyes should only be with white people with blonde hair and blue eyes? Why is this any more acceptable than that? Why is this point of view okay on any level? This kind of thinking is dangerous and based on fear and anger.
And not only is this an attack on Michael in the sense that he is the exact person who she is referring to in her blog, butt is also exactly the opposite of all of the things that he stood for. I think he'd be horrified by this. Michael spoke so openly from the bottom of his heart about his love for all races, for all religions.... for all PEOPLE.
So.... she takes a famous Black man who goes against the things that she apparently believes... one who strongly and loudly believed in the exact opposite of her agenda and uses his death and his grieving fans to make a quick buck by saying that he FAKED his DEATH?
The way I see this, after reading that blog, is this is a direct, vindictive, vengeful, disrespectful attack on Michael, on his family and on his fans by a woman who obviously had a problem with the way he chose to live and love. Once again I ask.... on what possible level is this okay?
Clearly, it isn't.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
because it's just enough. - part one.
Note: if you are TRULY about the truth, if you are TRULY "here for Michael", I, personally, think it's only fair to hear both sides out in order to find the truth. Don't you?
-----
I am all for freedom of expression. I do not think that everyone is going to see everything the same way and that is okay. Despite contrary belief, I do not automatically "hate" someone if they do not like a friend of mine.
However, there is a limit.
I want you to picture a friend of YOURS. Now I want you to imagine that someone is talking badly about your friend. Taking things that they said once and adding their own creative liberties. Taking a mistake that they may have made (just like everyone in the world makes mistakes) and turning it into something else. Not even KNOWING your friend but making all kinds of assumptions about them and having no problem spreading these assumptions as fact.... and, my own personal favorite, utterly completely INVENTING things that this person said. I'm talkin' making it up completely and 100%. Then imagine seeing other people go "omg _____ said WHAT?"and then spreading it around as fact? How would YOU take that?
I'm guessing you wouldn't be thrilled, right? I mean, it's your friend! You don't want to see lies about your friend or see words get thrown into their mouth, right?
But, let's ALSO say that the topic of conversation is one that is pretty important. Let's say that the people who are causing these problems for your friend... well... let's just say that you doubt their sincerity. Obviously they know what they are doing, but what you DON'T know is why exactly they are doing it. It's not exactly normal to invent things that people said and spread them around like that is it? I mean... I don't think it is.
Now, I know. I know that I am just a stupid brainless idiotic blind minion. I've heard it all. As strange as it sounds, I have had all kinds of insults hurled at me and about me simply because of who I choose to be friends with and how I choose to defend my friend.
I have NEVER;
-gone onto a forum and started or even really continued a fight
-attacked anyone
-"called" or "emailed" anyone with threats, insults or other such things.
-disliked or hated everyone who saw things differently than me.
I HAVE:
-defended the truth regardless of who I am talking to.
-lost my temper on occasion where the nonsense got too much for me.
-not elevated ANYONE to a "godlike" status nor think that ANYONE is perfect. Instead, I believe that everyone is human.
And yet, I am attacked. I am called a brainless minion. And, yes, we all joke about it 'cause it's ridiculous, but if you think about it... why? Why is that normal? Why am I a minion for defending MY friend but the people who defend others are cool? Doesn't make much sense to me...
I have always found it quite humorous that it can be considered "stupid" or "crazy" to defend someone but INSULTING someone is okay. I've never quite understand being told that it's wrong to simply state that something is false, but not wrong to actually SAY the false thing in the first place.
See, here's the thing for me, y'all. Yeah... Karen's my friend. We all know that and I've heard all about how I'm just being blinded by someone acting like my friend and so you can't trust my words because I'm just a stupid minion blah blah blah blah. So, that's fine. I can respect that. Maybe I'm just randomly defending my friend who's secretly some kind of evil being. Yup... that's what I'm doing. But, hey, that's what some people seem to think. So, I guess it's time to try this a different way.
You all don't want to trust Karen's words? Fine. You wanna not trust MY words? Fine. Maybe I need to do this a different way. Maybe I need to use your own words to prove the utter and complete LIES that have been going on for the past year and a half plus.
'Cause I, for one, have had enough.
I have had enough of my friend being lied about, slandered and attacked. I have ALSO had enough of watching kind nice people be lied to and led to believe that certain things are true when they are not. I am FURTHER tired of people being BLIND to certain things. Also tired of people who are supposed to be such advocates for truth being okay with lies. It is VERY easy for people on the internet to tell all kinds of fairy tales. It is very easy to believe the fairy tales. And sometimes fairy tales are harmless. But sometimes they are not. And by the way? This goes well beyond only wanting to protect Karen's character. Yes.. there is that... but this is also much more than that.
SO IF YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM DOING THIS, READ THAT LAST PARAGRAPH AGAIN. Then maybe you'll understand.
I've had enough. Call me whatever names you want to call me and attack me all you want, but this is what it is. If there's anything that anyone wants to open up to before part 2 comes out, that'd be awesome. I don't mind going through the obvious and PROVEN lies, but it'll make my life easier if yall can do it. ;)
Once again - call me what you need to call me. That's actually not something that I care about. Like, at all.
www.twitter.com/neverletyoupart
02.25.11
-----
I am all for freedom of expression. I do not think that everyone is going to see everything the same way and that is okay. Despite contrary belief, I do not automatically "hate" someone if they do not like a friend of mine.
However, there is a limit.
I want you to picture a friend of YOURS. Now I want you to imagine that someone is talking badly about your friend. Taking things that they said once and adding their own creative liberties. Taking a mistake that they may have made (just like everyone in the world makes mistakes) and turning it into something else. Not even KNOWING your friend but making all kinds of assumptions about them and having no problem spreading these assumptions as fact.... and, my own personal favorite, utterly completely INVENTING things that this person said. I'm talkin' making it up completely and 100%. Then imagine seeing other people go "omg _____ said WHAT?"and then spreading it around as fact? How would YOU take that?
I'm guessing you wouldn't be thrilled, right? I mean, it's your friend! You don't want to see lies about your friend or see words get thrown into their mouth, right?
But, let's ALSO say that the topic of conversation is one that is pretty important. Let's say that the people who are causing these problems for your friend... well... let's just say that you doubt their sincerity. Obviously they know what they are doing, but what you DON'T know is why exactly they are doing it. It's not exactly normal to invent things that people said and spread them around like that is it? I mean... I don't think it is.
Now, I know. I know that I am just a stupid brainless idiotic blind minion. I've heard it all. As strange as it sounds, I have had all kinds of insults hurled at me and about me simply because of who I choose to be friends with and how I choose to defend my friend.
I have NEVER;
-gone onto a forum and started or even really continued a fight
-attacked anyone
-"called" or "emailed" anyone with threats, insults or other such things.
-disliked or hated everyone who saw things differently than me.
I HAVE:
-defended the truth regardless of who I am talking to.
-lost my temper on occasion where the nonsense got too much for me.
-not elevated ANYONE to a "godlike" status nor think that ANYONE is perfect. Instead, I believe that everyone is human.
And yet, I am attacked. I am called a brainless minion. And, yes, we all joke about it 'cause it's ridiculous, but if you think about it... why? Why is that normal? Why am I a minion for defending MY friend but the people who defend others are cool? Doesn't make much sense to me...
I have always found it quite humorous that it can be considered "stupid" or "crazy" to defend someone but INSULTING someone is okay. I've never quite understand being told that it's wrong to simply state that something is false, but not wrong to actually SAY the false thing in the first place.
See, here's the thing for me, y'all. Yeah... Karen's my friend. We all know that and I've heard all about how I'm just being blinded by someone acting like my friend and so you can't trust my words because I'm just a stupid minion blah blah blah blah. So, that's fine. I can respect that. Maybe I'm just randomly defending my friend who's secretly some kind of evil being. Yup... that's what I'm doing. But, hey, that's what some people seem to think. So, I guess it's time to try this a different way.
You all don't want to trust Karen's words? Fine. You wanna not trust MY words? Fine. Maybe I need to do this a different way. Maybe I need to use your own words to prove the utter and complete LIES that have been going on for the past year and a half plus.
'Cause I, for one, have had enough.
I have had enough of my friend being lied about, slandered and attacked. I have ALSO had enough of watching kind nice people be lied to and led to believe that certain things are true when they are not. I am FURTHER tired of people being BLIND to certain things. Also tired of people who are supposed to be such advocates for truth being okay with lies. It is VERY easy for people on the internet to tell all kinds of fairy tales. It is very easy to believe the fairy tales. And sometimes fairy tales are harmless. But sometimes they are not. And by the way? This goes well beyond only wanting to protect Karen's character. Yes.. there is that... but this is also much more than that.
SO IF YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM DOING THIS, READ THAT LAST PARAGRAPH AGAIN. Then maybe you'll understand.
I've had enough. Call me whatever names you want to call me and attack me all you want, but this is what it is. If there's anything that anyone wants to open up to before part 2 comes out, that'd be awesome. I don't mind going through the obvious and PROVEN lies, but it'll make my life easier if yall can do it. ;)
Once again - call me what you need to call me. That's actually not something that I care about. Like, at all.
www.twitter.com/neverletyoupart
02.25.11
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
TOY
Before I start, I would like to link you all to
THIS blog. Please read that and try to understand where I am coming from. I truly hope that you all can... at least to a point. The purpose of this blog is not slander and is nothing other than exactly what it is.
Please do not take this as anything other than it is. This would be a GREAT opportunity for people to have an intelligent conversation. I am leaving comments open on this one.
This blog will be broken down into sub categories, but there is one main topic and that is Kenny. (Known from now on as KO.). There is much confusion amongst fans and the Michael community in general about this man, his character and whether or not he is telling the truth. This blog will attempt to answer those questions. You do not need to rely on me - I will be answering these questions with KO's own words.
Last Monday in court, KO took the stand as a witness for the prosecution in the involuntary manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray for the death of Michael Jackson. KO answered a number of questions under oath. He explained that he felt "anxiety" because there was a week where Michael had essentially "disappeared" from rehearsals. He mentioned one specific day (June 19th 2009) where Michael appeared so unwell that it was "scary". He also mentioned a meeting held on June 20th that took place at Michael's house and included KO, Dr. Murray, FD, RP and Michael... and perhaps other people as well.
That may all be true... selective truth, IMO, but it may all be true. The problem, however, comes when we compare what KO is saying now to what KO has said in the past. Furthermore, there are SOME things that KO said in court that I believe are, if not outright lies, SERIOUS dancing around and avoiding the truth.
Let's look at this on topic at a time.
On Michael's health
Had Jackson been unreliable, tired, in pain? Did he seem pepped up to the eyeballs on this cocktail of prescription drugs? “I’d been to his home, I’d seen him playing with his children, and seen no evidence ever of anything like that.”
True, that statement could be referring to KO saying that he had seen no evidence of Michael "pepped up to the eyeballs on this cocktail of prescription drug" and not the question of "Had Jackson been unreliable, tired, in pain?". Because of the way this was formed, we cannot be sure. However, it is, at the very least, something to question.
“I think he was eating as much as he thought he needed to. I wished he would have eaten more. I was always making sure there was plenty of food around
To me, that implies that KO did have some concern with the amount that Michael was (or was not) eating. Keep this in mind...
So wasn’t this battered, rake-thin man too frail to mount a comeback? Ortega is having none of it. “No! Look at photographs of Fred Astaire at the height of his career. They’re the spitting image.”
So... you weren't concerned about how thin he was? But you were concerned that he wasn't eating enough? Or you were just... sort of concerned? I'm confused. Are you?
BTW, here are some pictures of Michael during TII rehearsals and of Fred Astaire... you can decide for yourself if they're the spitting image or not..
KO has maintained that Michael was healthy throughout TII, right? So, what about this, taken directly from his testimony, on January 3 2011?
'It quickly became clear that the meeting was about me. That the Dr. was upset that I had sent Michael home and didn’t allow him to rehearse the night before. And BECAUSE I HAD VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT MICHAEL'S HEALTH that evening. Dr. Murry told me that this was not my responsibility and to not act like a doctor or a psychologist and to leave Michael’s health to him.'
So... there were concerns? It doesn't sound like Michael was just not feeling well on that one day. If there was a meeting the FOLLOWING day and KO "voiced his concerns about Michael's health", that does NOT sound, to me, as though it was a one time thing and that KO had no other concerns. Does it sound that way to you?
In court, KO was asked:
. Do you remember having a conversation with Karen Fay[e] [about Michael's health]?"
After requesting a glass of water, KO replied that he did not recall having a conversation with her.
Since Michael died, Karen Faye has remained consistent in everything that she has said regarding Michael's health and the circumstances that were surrounding him. Without going into too much detail, it is unquestionable that Karen expressed her concern about Michael's health while KO and his AEG buddies were still going around talking about how lovely everything was, signing autographs at parties and promoting their exciting new movie. It is true that this is a case of his word against hers, but.... based on all that... based on the fact that Karen expressed her concern to all of us since June or July 2009 and remained consistent in her words (and of course, going back to my old point that she would have NOTHING to gain from lying let alone the fact that so much of what she said was later proven true) and considering the fact that, once again, Kenny was running around full of "L-O-V-E" and "TOY" and what not...and would have PLENTY of reasons to lie... WHO do you think is telling the truth? Honestly.... what makes the most sense to YOU?
KO was then asked:
do you remember telling Karen Faye not to placate Michael
His reply was that he doesn't even know what the word "placate" means.
(For the record, here is the definition of placate. Someone feel free to pass it on to KO.
to appease or pacify, esp. by concessions or conciliatory gestures: )
The testimony went on as follows:
EC: Did you advise Karen Fay[e] in any respect in regard to how to treat Michael after this meeting?
KO: No.
EC: Did you discuss with Karen Fay[e] any thing regarding how she should treat Michael?
KO: I don't recall having any discussion with her.
Once again... who do you think is telling the truth?
He also claimed he does not remember if he spoke to Michael regarding the increased number of shows. Really? He doesn't REMEMBER? Okay, KO... okay.
By, the way, there is also THIS from KO's testimony at court:
6/25/2009: At some point he learned that something happened. He received a telephone call while he was rehearsing. Earlier, he had spoken to Randy Phillips and was on his way to rehearsal. I asked him to, “Please let Michael know how excited I am and how much I look forward to rehearsals.”
(Randy Phillips said?) I thought you were calling for a different reason,
Take that as what you will.
On This Is It, as a movie.
“At the time I was uncomfortable with the notion. My immediate instinct was: too close, too quick, too emotional,” Ortega tells me when we meet on the Sony Pictures lot in Culver City, Los Angeles.
“But then I discovered that there was gonna be a movie anyway,” the 59-year-old continues. “And a friend of mine called me and said, ‘I’m reading online that they’re talking to other directors.’ I thought, ‘Now wait a minute – this is really sacred material here. And we were there and I’ve been there on all of these ventures in this last twentysomething years with Michael.’”
Ortega couldn’t bear the prospect of an outsider – “somebody who didn’t really know what the experience was about” – having their hands on what would become Michael Jackson’s last will and testament. He talked to other members of Jackson’s inner circle. “I thought, if everyone will agree that this is a legacy piece, about those four months and about showing the fans what it was that we were trying to do, then I should try do this. Because, you know, who else?”
Okay. So, what he's saying here is that originally he did not want to do the movie - at least not right away - until he heard that they were going to do one anyway and were talking to other people. Correct? Alright. But, you see, then we have this:
This is from KO's twitter:
(http://www.twitter.com/KennyOrtegaBlog
The TII Team is deeply grieving the loss of our dear Michael. Our hearts go out to Michaels Children, Family and Fans around the world. LOVE 2:04 AM Jun 27th, 2009 via web
As we close our eyes on this sad day, DREAM, BELIEVE, THIS IS NOT IT. In time, we will celebrate and honor his vision with you all. 5:17 PM Jan 4th via web
You are not alone in the desire to see Michael celebrated with a Tribute that honors his final work TII We are working to make that real. 2:30 PM Jun 27th, 2009 via web
On June 27th. JUNE 27TH! Michael died on June 25th! And on JUNE 27TH, Kenny was talking about how they were working to make that real. And yet, didn't he say in that interview that at first he thought it was too soon? Too emotional? That he changed hid mind in time? So... what? When he says "in time", did he mean less than 48 hours? Or was he maybe less against it that he's trying to say? Of course there is always the possibility that he meant something else other than TII as a movie. Maybe they were going to, um, come up with some kind of OTHER tribute to honor his final work TII?
This, of course, is not about Michael's health, but it IS about Michael's death. It also speaks of his character.
Also, did anyone notice how KO kept tweeting about LOVE and TOY .... right up until around the time the DVD had been released? Just askin'
Note, also that by July 2nd, a week after Michael died, "official" rehearsal footage had already been released:
*: Official Michael Jackson rehearsal footage from "This Is It" has been released - Todd http://kennyortega.com/blog/2009/07/02/mjrehearsal/ 4:39 PM Jul 2nd, 2009 via Twitter Tools
On Michael's mental state and how he felt about TII
Why did he want to undertake such a gruelling commitment? Tackling his huge debts – reportedly $400 million (£245 million) – was, admits Ortega, “partly” a factor. Jackson’s attitude was apparently, “This is a great job, and I’m gonna be able to get myself back at a good place and provide my family with some security.” But Ortega emphatically denies the suggestion that his 50-night stand in London was forced on Jackson by his creditors and handlers.
“There are those out there who say, ‘Michael didn’t want to do This Is It. He wasn’t capable.’ Michael didn’t just wanna do it – his attitude was, we have to do it.” After almost two decades of multiple litigation, gibes about his appearance, jokes about chimpanzees and exactly who donated the sperm to conceive his children, Jackson had a lot to prove. “I also think it was giving him back something that had been sucked out of him. His dignity as an artist. His meaningfulness as an artist. He wanted this. This was bringing him happiness. This was something to look forward to.”
Okay. So, he wanted to do the shows and he was capable of doing the shows. Yes? Alright. But, then there's this (in the same interview!)
Could Ortega see that the lack of sleep was wearing Jackson down? “Sometimes, yeah. Yeah. And we’d have to be careful. Absolutely. **I was concerned about his physical strength and whether or not he was doing all the things he needed to do to be the strong person that he needed to be to fulfil what he wanted to fulfil.**”
Oh. Okay.
Had it been clear to Ortega all along that Jackson was actually capable of fulfilling his contractual obligations and playing all 50 shows? “No, it wasn’t clear to me,” the director confesses. “Not all through the rehearsals did I have absolute confidence. But that’s me,” Ortega chuckles. “I’m the director, and nervous. But towards the end – that’s why it was so sad, that’s why it was so difficult, that’s why it was painful. Because at the very end, we did see it.”
Alright. Well.
First of all, are you trying to imply that you were concerned but that's just because you were the director and so you were OVERLY concerned? As in, you were just being silly or something? Or are you, once again, saying that you were NOT sure that Michael was capable?
Or does it not matter because you changed your mind "at the very end". What does the very end mean? Does June 19th count as the very end or is that too far back Are you referring to the 23rd and 24th? Those were the supposed days that most people seem to agree that Michael was, for some reason, doing better...
To me, it sounds like KO wasn't keeping his story fully straight in this one article, let alone for months to come.
On Dr. Murray.
Ask if Dr Conrad Murray was a regular presence on the set, and Ortega replies that he only met him “a couple of times. "I had a couple of conversations with him. He was Michael’s personal choice doctor, and was his daily physician as I understand it. And was doing everything in his…” Ortega falters, as if he’s mindful of the ongoing legal situation. “He was helping Michael stay nourished and healthy and, you know, looking after him.”
Michael's personal choice doctor? Not AEGs?
Oh, okay. Well, I suppose technically speaking, that doesn't mean he lied. You know. A couple of conversations... one of them could have, in theory, been a meeting where the doctor yelled at him for sending Michael home and told him he wasn't a doctor and should mind his business.
Once again, we hear KO discuss the meeting in his testimony from January 2011:
'It quickly became clear that the meeting was about me. That the Dr. was upset that I had sent Michael home and didn’t allow him to rehearse the night before. And BECAUSE I HAD VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT MICHAEL'S HEALTH that evening. Dr. Murry told me that this was not my responsibility and to not act like a doctor or a psychologist and to leave Michael’s health to him.'
So, you DID have concerns about Michael's health.
Of course, that kind of thing doesn't sound like he was helping Michael stay healthy or looking after him. So, you know, there's THAT to think about. Why say that if it's not true? I mean, can they both be true? Could Murray really have been looking after Michael and keeping him healthy while also getting angry at KO for supposedly sending Michael home when he wasn't well? Doesn't sound so right to me...
The wrongful death suit
KO has recently filed legal documents requesting that he be removed from the wrongful death suit that Katherine Jackson has filed. His reasons for asking to be removed from the suit are:
"Kenneth Ortega is not alleged to be involved in the medical treatment or administration of drugs that allegedly caused Michael Jackson's death."
Well, that's all well and good, however nobody is accusing him of having been involved in the medical treatment of administration of drugs that allegedly caused Michael Jackson's death.
The wrongful death suit does not allege that KO had ANYTHING to do with that at all. What the wrongful death suit alleges is that, among other people, KO was NEGLECTFUL. That he saw the bad condition that Michael was in and that he, not only ignored the condition, but continued to push Michael. (More than one source has said that members of the AEG "team" told Michael that if he did not, essentially, shape up, that they would "pull the plug" on the whole show... that Michael was threatened...that basically, Michael was NOT in control here.)
KO's arguments for why he should not be included in the wrongful death suit, truly makes me wonder if he has READ the wrongful death suit.
Further, KO's lawyers also say:
Kenny never had a contract with Dr. Conrad Murray or with Michael Jackson, nor has he had any official affiliation with AEG.
He didn't have a contract with Murray. He didn't have a contract with Michael. And he had no "official" affiliation with AEG? I don't know what official means in this particular example, but... who exactly was KO working for then? What was he doing there if he had no affiliation with Michael OR with AEG?
Who killed Michael?
Had Jackson been (over)dosed with drugs to ensure that he performed? Did the pressures and expectations from tour promoter AEG and its insurers drive him too hard? Fatally hard?
Ortega refutes the allegation. “Never believe any of that. It’s not true. He set his own expectations. Nobody had to set expectations for Michael Jackson – he was Michael Jackson.”
Which leaves the $400 million question: who killed Michael Jackson? Kenny Ortega pauses for a long time before answering.
“An accident,” he says quietly. “I don’t think that everybody contributed to his life in the most positive way. But I don’t think that you can hold those people responsible. Michael was a 50-year-old man. A father. A professional. A businessman. Accomplished things for himself and others. And,” he concludes with one statement that few, whether Jackson supporter or detractor, would dispute, “he conquered the world of music and performance.”
An accident? Does that jive with what he said in court? You decide.
Please remember that there is going to be so much more. Assuming this goes to trial, KO will likely be back. We MUST keep track of his testimony. We must keep track of EVERYONES testimony. This is too important to let lies go by because we want Murray to be found guilty. Of course we want him to be found guilty - but that does not mean we can excuse people lying. It does not mean that we can pretend that there is not more to this than they would have us believe.
This is NOT me accusing him of anything. But... can we trust him?
The truth of the matter is, there is likely much more information than this out there. So much seems to be missing from the internet, so many interviews that I read a long time ago... I will keep looking. I advise you to do the same. KO is not the only one lying. If we want to have even a chance at the truth being out there... we cannot let things go by just because they appear convinient. We just can't do that.
Please note:
I did not WANT to dislike KO nor do I want to slander him in any way. I am merely pointing out what HE said. This blog hurt me to write. I am sure it will upset some people to read it too. For that I apologize. I just want the truth out there... and while there is not much that I can do to get it out there... I do have to try to do what it is that I can.
Sources:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/choreographer-kenny-ortega-michael-jackson-too-weak-to-perform-just-before-death-.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6881309.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-conrad-murray-prelim-day-1-part-ii.html
THIS blog. Please read that and try to understand where I am coming from. I truly hope that you all can... at least to a point. The purpose of this blog is not slander and is nothing other than exactly what it is.
Please do not take this as anything other than it is. This would be a GREAT opportunity for people to have an intelligent conversation. I am leaving comments open on this one.
This blog will be broken down into sub categories, but there is one main topic and that is Kenny. (Known from now on as KO.). There is much confusion amongst fans and the Michael community in general about this man, his character and whether or not he is telling the truth. This blog will attempt to answer those questions. You do not need to rely on me - I will be answering these questions with KO's own words.
Last Monday in court, KO took the stand as a witness for the prosecution in the involuntary manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray for the death of Michael Jackson. KO answered a number of questions under oath. He explained that he felt "anxiety" because there was a week where Michael had essentially "disappeared" from rehearsals. He mentioned one specific day (June 19th 2009) where Michael appeared so unwell that it was "scary". He also mentioned a meeting held on June 20th that took place at Michael's house and included KO, Dr. Murray, FD, RP and Michael... and perhaps other people as well.
That may all be true... selective truth, IMO, but it may all be true. The problem, however, comes when we compare what KO is saying now to what KO has said in the past. Furthermore, there are SOME things that KO said in court that I believe are, if not outright lies, SERIOUS dancing around and avoiding the truth.
Let's look at this on topic at a time.
On Michael's health
Had Jackson been unreliable, tired, in pain? Did he seem pepped up to the eyeballs on this cocktail of prescription drugs? “I’d been to his home, I’d seen him playing with his children, and seen no evidence ever of anything like that.”
True, that statement could be referring to KO saying that he had seen no evidence of Michael "pepped up to the eyeballs on this cocktail of prescription drug" and not the question of "Had Jackson been unreliable, tired, in pain?". Because of the way this was formed, we cannot be sure. However, it is, at the very least, something to question.
“I think he was eating as much as he thought he needed to. I wished he would have eaten more. I was always making sure there was plenty of food around
To me, that implies that KO did have some concern with the amount that Michael was (or was not) eating. Keep this in mind...
So wasn’t this battered, rake-thin man too frail to mount a comeback? Ortega is having none of it. “No! Look at photographs of Fred Astaire at the height of his career. They’re the spitting image.”
So... you weren't concerned about how thin he was? But you were concerned that he wasn't eating enough? Or you were just... sort of concerned? I'm confused. Are you?
BTW, here are some pictures of Michael during TII rehearsals and of Fred Astaire... you can decide for yourself if they're the spitting image or not..
KO has maintained that Michael was healthy throughout TII, right? So, what about this, taken directly from his testimony, on January 3 2011?
'It quickly became clear that the meeting was about me. That the Dr. was upset that I had sent Michael home and didn’t allow him to rehearse the night before. And BECAUSE I HAD VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT MICHAEL'S HEALTH that evening. Dr. Murry told me that this was not my responsibility and to not act like a doctor or a psychologist and to leave Michael’s health to him.'
So... there were concerns? It doesn't sound like Michael was just not feeling well on that one day. If there was a meeting the FOLLOWING day and KO "voiced his concerns about Michael's health", that does NOT sound, to me, as though it was a one time thing and that KO had no other concerns. Does it sound that way to you?
In court, KO was asked:
. Do you remember having a conversation with Karen Fay[e] [about Michael's health]?"
After requesting a glass of water, KO replied that he did not recall having a conversation with her.
Since Michael died, Karen Faye has remained consistent in everything that she has said regarding Michael's health and the circumstances that were surrounding him. Without going into too much detail, it is unquestionable that Karen expressed her concern about Michael's health while KO and his AEG buddies were still going around talking about how lovely everything was, signing autographs at parties and promoting their exciting new movie. It is true that this is a case of his word against hers, but.... based on all that... based on the fact that Karen expressed her concern to all of us since June or July 2009 and remained consistent in her words (and of course, going back to my old point that she would have NOTHING to gain from lying let alone the fact that so much of what she said was later proven true) and considering the fact that, once again, Kenny was running around full of "L-O-V-E" and "TOY" and what not...and would have PLENTY of reasons to lie... WHO do you think is telling the truth? Honestly.... what makes the most sense to YOU?
KO was then asked:
do you remember telling Karen Faye not to placate Michael
His reply was that he doesn't even know what the word "placate" means.
(For the record, here is the definition of placate. Someone feel free to pass it on to KO.
to appease or pacify, esp. by concessions or conciliatory gestures: )
The testimony went on as follows:
EC: Did you advise Karen Fay[e] in any respect in regard to how to treat Michael after this meeting?
KO: No.
EC: Did you discuss with Karen Fay[e] any thing regarding how she should treat Michael?
KO: I don't recall having any discussion with her.
Once again... who do you think is telling the truth?
He also claimed he does not remember if he spoke to Michael regarding the increased number of shows. Really? He doesn't REMEMBER? Okay, KO... okay.
By, the way, there is also THIS from KO's testimony at court:
6/25/2009: At some point he learned that something happened. He received a telephone call while he was rehearsing. Earlier, he had spoken to Randy Phillips and was on his way to rehearsal. I asked him to, “Please let Michael know how excited I am and how much I look forward to rehearsals.”
(Randy Phillips said?) I thought you were calling for a different reason,
Take that as what you will.
On This Is It, as a movie.
“At the time I was uncomfortable with the notion. My immediate instinct was: too close, too quick, too emotional,” Ortega tells me when we meet on the Sony Pictures lot in Culver City, Los Angeles.
“But then I discovered that there was gonna be a movie anyway,” the 59-year-old continues. “And a friend of mine called me and said, ‘I’m reading online that they’re talking to other directors.’ I thought, ‘Now wait a minute – this is really sacred material here. And we were there and I’ve been there on all of these ventures in this last twentysomething years with Michael.’”
Ortega couldn’t bear the prospect of an outsider – “somebody who didn’t really know what the experience was about” – having their hands on what would become Michael Jackson’s last will and testament. He talked to other members of Jackson’s inner circle. “I thought, if everyone will agree that this is a legacy piece, about those four months and about showing the fans what it was that we were trying to do, then I should try do this. Because, you know, who else?”
Okay. So, what he's saying here is that originally he did not want to do the movie - at least not right away - until he heard that they were going to do one anyway and were talking to other people. Correct? Alright. But, you see, then we have this:
This is from KO's twitter:
(http://www.twitter.com/KennyOrtegaBlog
The TII Team is deeply grieving the loss of our dear Michael. Our hearts go out to Michaels Children, Family and Fans around the world. LOVE 2:04 AM Jun 27th, 2009 via web
As we close our eyes on this sad day, DREAM, BELIEVE, THIS IS NOT IT. In time, we will celebrate and honor his vision with you all. 5:17 PM Jan 4th via web
You are not alone in the desire to see Michael celebrated with a Tribute that honors his final work TII We are working to make that real. 2:30 PM Jun 27th, 2009 via web
On June 27th. JUNE 27TH! Michael died on June 25th! And on JUNE 27TH, Kenny was talking about how they were working to make that real. And yet, didn't he say in that interview that at first he thought it was too soon? Too emotional? That he changed hid mind in time? So... what? When he says "in time", did he mean less than 48 hours? Or was he maybe less against it that he's trying to say? Of course there is always the possibility that he meant something else other than TII as a movie. Maybe they were going to, um, come up with some kind of OTHER tribute to honor his final work TII?
This, of course, is not about Michael's health, but it IS about Michael's death. It also speaks of his character.
Also, did anyone notice how KO kept tweeting about LOVE and TOY .... right up until around the time the DVD had been released? Just askin'
Note, also that by July 2nd, a week after Michael died, "official" rehearsal footage had already been released:
*: Official Michael Jackson rehearsal footage from "This Is It" has been released - Todd http://kennyortega.com/blog/2009/07/02/mjrehearsal/ 4:39 PM Jul 2nd, 2009 via Twitter Tools
On Michael's mental state and how he felt about TII
Why did he want to undertake such a gruelling commitment? Tackling his huge debts – reportedly $400 million (£245 million) – was, admits Ortega, “partly” a factor. Jackson’s attitude was apparently, “This is a great job, and I’m gonna be able to get myself back at a good place and provide my family with some security.” But Ortega emphatically denies the suggestion that his 50-night stand in London was forced on Jackson by his creditors and handlers.
“There are those out there who say, ‘Michael didn’t want to do This Is It. He wasn’t capable.’ Michael didn’t just wanna do it – his attitude was, we have to do it.” After almost two decades of multiple litigation, gibes about his appearance, jokes about chimpanzees and exactly who donated the sperm to conceive his children, Jackson had a lot to prove. “I also think it was giving him back something that had been sucked out of him. His dignity as an artist. His meaningfulness as an artist. He wanted this. This was bringing him happiness. This was something to look forward to.”
Okay. So, he wanted to do the shows and he was capable of doing the shows. Yes? Alright. But, then there's this (in the same interview!)
Could Ortega see that the lack of sleep was wearing Jackson down? “Sometimes, yeah. Yeah. And we’d have to be careful. Absolutely. **I was concerned about his physical strength and whether or not he was doing all the things he needed to do to be the strong person that he needed to be to fulfil what he wanted to fulfil.**”
Oh. Okay.
Had it been clear to Ortega all along that Jackson was actually capable of fulfilling his contractual obligations and playing all 50 shows? “No, it wasn’t clear to me,” the director confesses. “Not all through the rehearsals did I have absolute confidence. But that’s me,” Ortega chuckles. “I’m the director, and nervous. But towards the end – that’s why it was so sad, that’s why it was so difficult, that’s why it was painful. Because at the very end, we did see it.”
Alright. Well.
First of all, are you trying to imply that you were concerned but that's just because you were the director and so you were OVERLY concerned? As in, you were just being silly or something? Or are you, once again, saying that you were NOT sure that Michael was capable?
Or does it not matter because you changed your mind "at the very end". What does the very end mean? Does June 19th count as the very end or is that too far back Are you referring to the 23rd and 24th? Those were the supposed days that most people seem to agree that Michael was, for some reason, doing better...
To me, it sounds like KO wasn't keeping his story fully straight in this one article, let alone for months to come.
On Dr. Murray.
Ask if Dr Conrad Murray was a regular presence on the set, and Ortega replies that he only met him “a couple of times. "I had a couple of conversations with him. He was Michael’s personal choice doctor, and was his daily physician as I understand it. And was doing everything in his…” Ortega falters, as if he’s mindful of the ongoing legal situation. “He was helping Michael stay nourished and healthy and, you know, looking after him.”
Michael's personal choice doctor? Not AEGs?
Oh, okay. Well, I suppose technically speaking, that doesn't mean he lied. You know. A couple of conversations... one of them could have, in theory, been a meeting where the doctor yelled at him for sending Michael home and told him he wasn't a doctor and should mind his business.
Once again, we hear KO discuss the meeting in his testimony from January 2011:
'It quickly became clear that the meeting was about me. That the Dr. was upset that I had sent Michael home and didn’t allow him to rehearse the night before. And BECAUSE I HAD VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT MICHAEL'S HEALTH that evening. Dr. Murry told me that this was not my responsibility and to not act like a doctor or a psychologist and to leave Michael’s health to him.'
So, you DID have concerns about Michael's health.
Of course, that kind of thing doesn't sound like he was helping Michael stay healthy or looking after him. So, you know, there's THAT to think about. Why say that if it's not true? I mean, can they both be true? Could Murray really have been looking after Michael and keeping him healthy while also getting angry at KO for supposedly sending Michael home when he wasn't well? Doesn't sound so right to me...
The wrongful death suit
KO has recently filed legal documents requesting that he be removed from the wrongful death suit that Katherine Jackson has filed. His reasons for asking to be removed from the suit are:
"Kenneth Ortega is not alleged to be involved in the medical treatment or administration of drugs that allegedly caused Michael Jackson's death."
Well, that's all well and good, however nobody is accusing him of having been involved in the medical treatment of administration of drugs that allegedly caused Michael Jackson's death.
The wrongful death suit does not allege that KO had ANYTHING to do with that at all. What the wrongful death suit alleges is that, among other people, KO was NEGLECTFUL. That he saw the bad condition that Michael was in and that he, not only ignored the condition, but continued to push Michael. (More than one source has said that members of the AEG "team" told Michael that if he did not, essentially, shape up, that they would "pull the plug" on the whole show... that Michael was threatened...that basically, Michael was NOT in control here.)
KO's arguments for why he should not be included in the wrongful death suit, truly makes me wonder if he has READ the wrongful death suit.
Further, KO's lawyers also say:
Kenny never had a contract with Dr. Conrad Murray or with Michael Jackson, nor has he had any official affiliation with AEG.
He didn't have a contract with Murray. He didn't have a contract with Michael. And he had no "official" affiliation with AEG? I don't know what official means in this particular example, but... who exactly was KO working for then? What was he doing there if he had no affiliation with Michael OR with AEG?
Who killed Michael?
Had Jackson been (over)dosed with drugs to ensure that he performed? Did the pressures and expectations from tour promoter AEG and its insurers drive him too hard? Fatally hard?
Ortega refutes the allegation. “Never believe any of that. It’s not true. He set his own expectations. Nobody had to set expectations for Michael Jackson – he was Michael Jackson.”
Which leaves the $400 million question: who killed Michael Jackson? Kenny Ortega pauses for a long time before answering.
“An accident,” he says quietly. “I don’t think that everybody contributed to his life in the most positive way. But I don’t think that you can hold those people responsible. Michael was a 50-year-old man. A father. A professional. A businessman. Accomplished things for himself and others. And,” he concludes with one statement that few, whether Jackson supporter or detractor, would dispute, “he conquered the world of music and performance.”
An accident? Does that jive with what he said in court? You decide.
Please remember that there is going to be so much more. Assuming this goes to trial, KO will likely be back. We MUST keep track of his testimony. We must keep track of EVERYONES testimony. This is too important to let lies go by because we want Murray to be found guilty. Of course we want him to be found guilty - but that does not mean we can excuse people lying. It does not mean that we can pretend that there is not more to this than they would have us believe.
This is NOT me accusing him of anything. But... can we trust him?
The truth of the matter is, there is likely much more information than this out there. So much seems to be missing from the internet, so many interviews that I read a long time ago... I will keep looking. I advise you to do the same. KO is not the only one lying. If we want to have even a chance at the truth being out there... we cannot let things go by just because they appear convinient. We just can't do that.
Please note:
I did not WANT to dislike KO nor do I want to slander him in any way. I am merely pointing out what HE said. This blog hurt me to write. I am sure it will upset some people to read it too. For that I apologize. I just want the truth out there... and while there is not much that I can do to get it out there... I do have to try to do what it is that I can.
Sources:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/choreographer-kenny-ortega-michael-jackson-too-weak-to-perform-just-before-death-.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6881309.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-conrad-murray-prelim-day-1-part-ii.html
in the courtroom..
There is more than one issue that I would like to address either today or soon, and I believe that the best way to do so is in more than one blog. There may (in fact, there very likely will) be more issues that will come up in the future and it just makes sense to have separate blogs. That said, much of what I will likely write about in the future will reference this blog.
My aim with this is to try to explain what exactly is going on in the courtroom right now/went on in the courtroom in the last couple of weeks. I am not a law expert, however I have spent time researching and understanding and I know that there are some people who are perhaps not sure because they haven't had as much time to dedicate to researching or whatever.
Basically, what is going o is the following:
We have the prosecution and we have the defense.
The prosecution includes the district attorney(s) whos aim it is to prove the case that is in front of them.
The defense, which in this case is Dr. Murray, is trying, obviously, to challenge the prosecutions case enough that a judge or jury will not consider these charges to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that therefore Murray should not be considered guilty of this crime.
It is important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are the ones who have to prove something. Not Murray. If Murray and his team did nothing and the prosecution did not present enough evidence to make a jury believe that Murray pretty much definitely did what he is being accused of, Murray would not be found guilty. Of course, that is not what the defense intends to do... they intend to challenge the charges and, as has been reported, their alleged plan is to say that Michael injected himself with the propofol.... if they can put enough doubt in the jurors minds or make them believe that this was a likely possibility and that therefore Michael's death was not "enough" Murrays fault... once again, Murray will be found not guilty.
The charges are involuntary manslaughter.
The definition of involuntary manslaughter in California is as follows:
Call 24/7 | 888.327.4652
California's Involuntary Manslaughter Law
1. The Legal Definition of Involuntary
Manslaughter in California
Involuntary manslaughter differs from Penal Code 187 PC murder in that it involves an unintentional death.
2
California Penal Code 192(b) PC defines "involuntary manslaughter" as an unlawful killing that takes place
1. during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
2. during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.3
Involuntary manslaughter does not apply to acts that you commit while driving a car (those are covered by California's vehicular manslaughter laws, discussed under Section 4. Related Offenses).4
Basically.... that it was not planned and also not intentional.
There is an understanding that is going around due to all of this that the prosecution are therefore the "good guys" whereas the defense are the "bad guys". That is not entirely true.
The prosecution has a case in front of them. Their goal is to win this case. The prosecution is not here for MICHAEL. Because the charges are involuntary manslaughter, that is their goal. To have Murray found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. They are not interested in anything else - unless of course something or someone else was introduced directly into charges.
As someone who loves Michael, I am not content with accepting anything anyone says as a prosecution witness as the gospel. I, for one, believe there is FAR more to this than Murray and his "involuntary manslaughter" charges.
Do I want Murray to walk? Absolutely not. Do I think that it has been made clear that Murray lied? Yes. However, and I will not apologize for this, I would prefer the TRUTH, the actual 100% FACT FILLED truth to be out there than to sit here silently, accept the situation for what it is, and not blindly support anyone that stands up there for the prosecution. It is not as black and white as that they are the good guys and the defense are the bad guys. It just isn't. Is Murray a "bad guy"? Um, it certainly seems like it to me. Does that mean that he is the only "bad guy"? Does that mean that any witness for the prosecution is going to tell the truth and be looking out for Michael? NO. So, should I be silent if I feel someone is lying because they are standing up for the prosecution? No. Not if I feel that they are lying about Michael and the way that Michael died. NONE of this means I support Murray or I want Murray to walk. Of course not. And my attempting to "discredit" ANYONE that I feel is lying does not at all MEAN that I want Murray to walk. But, I stand by the fact that I believe that there is WAY more to this all than Murray and I will not sit there and accept every word shoved down our throats just because the person saying it is allegedly attempting to help the prosecution find Murray guilty. I am sorry. It is just not that simple.
I want Murray held accountable for anything that he did just as much as everyone else does. I LOVE Michael and there is NEVER going to be enough justice in the world for taking away this beautiful man. For hurting him, for killing him. For orphaning his children, leaving his parents without their son, his siblings without their brother, his friends without their friend and, yes, all of us without him as well. This world needed him. And now he is gone. So, no. Once again, I cannot blindly sit here and accept anything that I believe is a lie when it comes to Michael or how Michael died. I don't care which side they are supposedly testifying for. I love Michael more than that. I know we ALL love Michael and I am not suggesting that I love him more than anyone else, I am simply explaining my feelings. By the way. I care more than just swallowing what I believe is the truth so that Murray will get his ten minutes in jail. Once again, to be clear, that does NOT MEAN that I support the defense - of course I don't. That does not mean I do not want Murray held accountable - of course I do. It means that I care too much to not make it clear when I believe that someone is lying.
I am nobody at the end of the day. Just a fan trying to reach out to anyone else that might care and share what I think, what I know or what I feel. I am sorry if I am being misunderstood. I know I am not the only one. But, there is no better way that I can explain it. And I hope you will all keep that in mind as the pretrial and then (hopefully) the trial and whatever else may happen along the way happens and I continue to express what I believe.
There is simply TOO MUCH that is going on, with more and more getting released every day, that is NOT adding up. This is NOT an involuntary manslaughter situation and I know how many of us feel the same way - that this does not add up. These facts do not add up. And it is simply not a case that is as simple as certain people would like us to believe. The truth matters.
I will link back to this blog when I feel it is needed and I thank you for reading it and for hopefully ta least attempting to understand what I am saying.
My aim with this is to try to explain what exactly is going on in the courtroom right now/went on in the courtroom in the last couple of weeks. I am not a law expert, however I have spent time researching and understanding and I know that there are some people who are perhaps not sure because they haven't had as much time to dedicate to researching or whatever.
Basically, what is going o is the following:
We have the prosecution and we have the defense.
The prosecution includes the district attorney(s) whos aim it is to prove the case that is in front of them.
The defense, which in this case is Dr. Murray, is trying, obviously, to challenge the prosecutions case enough that a judge or jury will not consider these charges to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that therefore Murray should not be considered guilty of this crime.
It is important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are the ones who have to prove something. Not Murray. If Murray and his team did nothing and the prosecution did not present enough evidence to make a jury believe that Murray pretty much definitely did what he is being accused of, Murray would not be found guilty. Of course, that is not what the defense intends to do... they intend to challenge the charges and, as has been reported, their alleged plan is to say that Michael injected himself with the propofol.... if they can put enough doubt in the jurors minds or make them believe that this was a likely possibility and that therefore Michael's death was not "enough" Murrays fault... once again, Murray will be found not guilty.
The charges are involuntary manslaughter.
The definition of involuntary manslaughter in California is as follows:
Call 24/7 | 888.327.4652
California's Involuntary Manslaughter Law
1. The Legal Definition of Involuntary
Manslaughter in California
Involuntary manslaughter differs from Penal Code 187 PC murder in that it involves an unintentional death.
2
California Penal Code 192(b) PC defines "involuntary manslaughter" as an unlawful killing that takes place
1. during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
2. during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.3
Involuntary manslaughter does not apply to acts that you commit while driving a car (those are covered by California's vehicular manslaughter laws, discussed under Section 4. Related Offenses).4
Basically.... that it was not planned and also not intentional.
There is an understanding that is going around due to all of this that the prosecution are therefore the "good guys" whereas the defense are the "bad guys". That is not entirely true.
The prosecution has a case in front of them. Their goal is to win this case. The prosecution is not here for MICHAEL. Because the charges are involuntary manslaughter, that is their goal. To have Murray found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. They are not interested in anything else - unless of course something or someone else was introduced directly into charges.
As someone who loves Michael, I am not content with accepting anything anyone says as a prosecution witness as the gospel. I, for one, believe there is FAR more to this than Murray and his "involuntary manslaughter" charges.
Do I want Murray to walk? Absolutely not. Do I think that it has been made clear that Murray lied? Yes. However, and I will not apologize for this, I would prefer the TRUTH, the actual 100% FACT FILLED truth to be out there than to sit here silently, accept the situation for what it is, and not blindly support anyone that stands up there for the prosecution. It is not as black and white as that they are the good guys and the defense are the bad guys. It just isn't. Is Murray a "bad guy"? Um, it certainly seems like it to me. Does that mean that he is the only "bad guy"? Does that mean that any witness for the prosecution is going to tell the truth and be looking out for Michael? NO. So, should I be silent if I feel someone is lying because they are standing up for the prosecution? No. Not if I feel that they are lying about Michael and the way that Michael died. NONE of this means I support Murray or I want Murray to walk. Of course not. And my attempting to "discredit" ANYONE that I feel is lying does not at all MEAN that I want Murray to walk. But, I stand by the fact that I believe that there is WAY more to this all than Murray and I will not sit there and accept every word shoved down our throats just because the person saying it is allegedly attempting to help the prosecution find Murray guilty. I am sorry. It is just not that simple.
I want Murray held accountable for anything that he did just as much as everyone else does. I LOVE Michael and there is NEVER going to be enough justice in the world for taking away this beautiful man. For hurting him, for killing him. For orphaning his children, leaving his parents without their son, his siblings without their brother, his friends without their friend and, yes, all of us without him as well. This world needed him. And now he is gone. So, no. Once again, I cannot blindly sit here and accept anything that I believe is a lie when it comes to Michael or how Michael died. I don't care which side they are supposedly testifying for. I love Michael more than that. I know we ALL love Michael and I am not suggesting that I love him more than anyone else, I am simply explaining my feelings. By the way. I care more than just swallowing what I believe is the truth so that Murray will get his ten minutes in jail. Once again, to be clear, that does NOT MEAN that I support the defense - of course I don't. That does not mean I do not want Murray held accountable - of course I do. It means that I care too much to not make it clear when I believe that someone is lying.
I am nobody at the end of the day. Just a fan trying to reach out to anyone else that might care and share what I think, what I know or what I feel. I am sorry if I am being misunderstood. I know I am not the only one. But, there is no better way that I can explain it. And I hope you will all keep that in mind as the pretrial and then (hopefully) the trial and whatever else may happen along the way happens and I continue to express what I believe.
There is simply TOO MUCH that is going on, with more and more getting released every day, that is NOT adding up. This is NOT an involuntary manslaughter situation and I know how many of us feel the same way - that this does not add up. These facts do not add up. And it is simply not a case that is as simple as certain people would like us to believe. The truth matters.
I will link back to this blog when I feel it is needed and I thank you for reading it and for hopefully ta least attempting to understand what I am saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)