Please enable JavaScript in your browser preferences and then Reload this page!!!

Michael Jackson Justice: Katherine Jackson and Oprah Winfrey

God: Reconnect to Him

The Conspiracy against God is about "The Word", and the profaning of His Holy Name within us. Adam fell in the garden, breaking the direct connection to God. Jesus, the "last Adam" was a quickening Spirit, the Word made Flesh, and the only one with whom we can re-establish our relationship with God. Michael's story is still unfolding. He is the one who is, is not. But Jesus is the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. Many are trying to rewrite HIStory. We were given a help to instruct us. Learn more "here".

Monday, November 8, 2010

Katherine Jackson and Oprah Winfrey

Katherine Jackson a Class Act Through Tough Questioning


I cannot say I got through this without crying, because I did not.  Katherine Jackson is a sweetheart and the first time she talked about Michael as a baby during the first ten minutes of the interview I wanted nothing more than to just kiss her cheek and give her a big hug.  That is when I began writing in my notebook . . . again, under water.

First of all, I want to THANK OPRAH for keeping it relatively gentle.  There were some questions I did not like and to be honest (without being graphic?) beating a dead horse on the drug issue and the child molestation interview.

The  first issue I want to address even though this is not in order, was that Katherine did say that she believed Lisa Marie loved Michael.  This does not explain or excuse Lisa Marie's actions in ALL INTERVIEWS but if Katherine says that LMP loved Michael, then she did.  I do wish she had done a better job at sticking by Michael's side in his time of need and I cannot explain why she did not.  But if Michael knew love even for a fraction of the time they had together, I am very happy about that.  I wish it could have worked out.

Opening the interview Oprah asked Miss Katherine about how she most remember's Michael.  Miss Katherine answered through all the years as Oprah steered her to the "little boy" Michael and Katherine agreed.  They showed a picture in the book that Miss Katherine put together of a young Michael for emphasis.

Oprah led into the "surgeries" and talked about the number of surgeries Michael had told her about in 1993 and Oprah said that was the only thing she did not agree with him about.  Miss Katherine said it was more than that, but that it wasn't THAT many.  Heartbreaking was Miss Katherine talking about Michael's adolescence and how he felt about his appearance.  I remember going through  this with my own son in his teen years.  Miss Katherine also talked about his vitiligo and how Michael had procedures done to cover that and they had  talked about it. She didn't know what he did but she said he had procedures done on his face, arms and areas that clothing did not cover.

Michael's Never Changing Love in his Eyes


Oprah then asked her about June 25, 2009.  My breath caught.  Watching Katherine's face I at first wasn't sure how to read it.  She looked down.  I thought she held it together relatively well for someone who lost her son even after a year and a half.  Oprah asked her where she was and Miss Katherine responded "service calls"  (Jehovah's Witness) witnessing is what my church calls it.  I smiled at the thought of what would I do if Miss Katherine ever showed up at my door to talk about God.  I would probably kiss her on the cheek, give her a big hug, invite her in and promptly try to convert her, ( sorry Miss Katherine, just kidding).

On to the 25th of June, there were some things that Miss Katherine said when answering questions that left me scratching my head a bit.  This must have been very hard for her, but she got through it, poised and gracious.  She said that Joe called her and told her that somebody left Michael's house in an ambulance, covered up.  Joe did not say it was Michael, at least from what Miss Katherine said.  She said when she first got to the hospital she wasn't told he was dead, only that he was sick. She said the children were there in another room and she did not know they were there.

Next she said in answer to Oprah's question as to when she was finally told Michael had died and who told her, and Miss Katherine replied that it took a long time and that the doctor told her . . . Dr. Murray.

Now according to ALL REPORTS given for months after Michael died, Dr. Murray fled the scene and no one could find him.  This butts against reports from Frank DiLeo that Murray was in the room with him and the children when Frank told  the children that Michael had died, and now Miss Katherine saying that Dr. Murray was still there "for a long time" and that HE told her Michael was "gone".

The word she used was gone.  This was also the word she used when talking about the children and how  they were when she saw them.  She said that Paris was crying and saying "daddy I want to go with you." and "I don't want to live without you."  I tried hard, really hard  to read between the lines on this one.  I couldn't until later on in the interview when watching the interaction with the Michael's children.

Next, Katherine was questioned about the drugs . . . again with the drugs.  I listened carefully to this segment of the interview because I still  maintain that Michael was not a drug addict.  At least not after he had the children.  I have also in previous blog discussed the idea that Michael was possibly drugged by his handlers and Michael may have been in denial about that until he did his own checking when he got suspicious himself.  Miss Katherine discussed Michael being in denial and she said that Michael told her over the phone, "Even my own mother doesn't believe me?"  All THIS I believe to be true and was actually said.  Miss Katherine like most of us probably heard as much about her son from the tabloids as we did.  Miss Katherine also said that she had told Michael it would "kill her" if Michael died of an overdose.  This I also believe was said, but none of this confirms Michael was an addict nor does it confirm for me that Miss Katherine believed he was a addict.  It DOES confirm for me that she ASKED Michael about it and she SUSPECTED it to be possible.  She did qualify the issue by bringing up the Pepsi commercial incident and his developed dependency on painkillers (easy to do . . . I developed one to Lortab after my surgeries.  My doctor cut me off immediately).

I do not believe that Michael willingly over-medicated while he was a father.  Especially after learning and knowing that people wanted him dead.

The Children -

Oprah asked about Michael's relationship with children and asked about the trial and molestation charges.  This was particularly hard on Miss Katherine.   This was the biggest source of pain for most of us in regard to Michael's life.  I could not believe that Oprah had the nerve to ask Miss Katherine if she at any time thought Michael could be guilty of the charges.  I was even more surprised that Miss Katherine did not finally blow up at her and say, "Look! Enough is enough already!  How many times to you need to hear the word INNOCENT before you give my son a BREAK!"  (ooooh, and I am getting angry again just  thinking about this!)

But that is not what she did.  To the contrary Miss Katherine answered this question in just the same way she answered it every other time she was asked it before.  She was calm and insistent.  She shook her head and said no and she did not want to talk about the trial because it was a very upsetting time and painful time in her son's life.  (Yes it was!)

Miss Katherine did say that the trial did change Michael and said that before he was very trusting of people but after the trial he told his mother he didn't trust anyone.

Tomorrow I will finish this interview.  Today has been a very long and chopped up day and I did want time to really focus on what was said about Murray and the segment with the children.

Love and God Bless you.


Michael Would Never Leave the Children He Loved

66 comments:

  1. Thank you for your post.We do not get to see the Oprah show as it is not relayed here in our country.I have to rely on you tube or blogs like yours to follow whatever is happening in MJ's world.I am a regular follower of your blog.Thanx once again.Malcy from India.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have yet to see the interview and couldn't waite to read your write up. All day I've had this gnawing sensation in my gut due to today's interview. You said Oprah was gentle with Miss Katherine and I was glad to hear that. I can't imagine going through what she has gone through over the years. Seeing her son get torn to pieces and not being able to do anything about it must have been torture for her. I wonder what she thinks of Oprah and the way she has mocked him and accused him over the years.

    God bless you Katherine!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, there is nothing that O did in this interview that surprised me. In fact, I think we all knew her a bit too well. In any case, I give kudos to Katherine. She maintained rather well throughout the entire interview, and you could feel her pain. I know I could having lost my own son ironically also in June (the 14th) but in 2006. He was 20 and left behind 2 young sons. Michael passed June 25th, 2009 and left behind 2 young sons and a daughter. The similarities in pain between both of us Moms is true. Katherine was quite honest and truthful when she stated, that it's a pain that will never fully heal, and that there isn't a day that goes by where she doesn't think of her son. Yes, it gets better with time, but then... the pain can hit you like it all just happened. She and I are on the same wavelength entirely there.

    In any case, I too found it rather enlightening that it was Murray who told her that Michael "was gone." That throws up several red flags now. Hmm...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bonnie, I ordered the transcript from Oprah's website today, and it will be emailed to me in PDF form in a few days. Once I get it, I'm going to convert it to a word document and post it on the Vindicate MJ blog, along with our analysis. If you want, I can email you a copy of the transcript for you to use in future posts.

    By the way, I recently transcribed the "Frozen in Time" seminar from September, and I've posted parts 1-4, which consist of Judge Rodney Melville, Larry Feldman, Carl Douglas and Ron Zonen. Part 5 will have Mesereau, and should be up later this week. Here's part 1:

    http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/transcript-of-frozen-in-time-a-riveting-behind-the-scenes-view-of-the-michael-jackson-cases-part-1/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bonnie - I just finished watching the interview. I cried and cried and felt so sorry for Katherine. You can easily feel her deep sorrow she has for her son’s death. I don’t think she will ever heal as she said.

    I wished Oprah letter talk further how Michael was misunderstood. She just cuts her off when she was about to explain it. That’s what I don’t like her style of interviewing, she cuts off people on the most important topic all the time. I am still sad I can’t talk much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is on youtube Dylan if you can access that.

    If this is too personal then you need not answer. But I have often wondered how someone can become addicted to a pain killer. If you aren't in any pain why would you want to take the pain killer? Are you able to help me understand? ♥

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Bonnie: Thank you for your information and for all your efforts in supporting Michael for your love and faith in him.
    I did not want to watch Oprah and give her airtime today, I don't understand what is wrong with this woman, she has changed so much I guess she has been bought by greed I remember when in her show she would organize and give to people in need or maybe that was all fake and pure PR. but I resent so much her taking advantage of Michael after his death just like she did when he was alive just to increase her ratings, shame on her one day she will be on the other side and know what she has done. Michael was all about innocence, he was caring, loving, giving all he did was give his talent his love and life to the world and all he got back from the press and those with darkness in their heart was pain. I love Mrs. Jackson and really admire her she has gone through so much having and raising 9 children could not have been easy but she is a loving and strong woman I truly wish that she knows how much so many of us truly love her son and how he will always be alive in our hearts. Thank you. Maria

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bonnie.. I just noticed something Katherine said..

    "I think of my son all through the day, all the time. I think of the things he used to do when he was a little boy, the jokes he used to tell. I have a lot of good memories. That's one thing they can't take away from me."

    "THEY" can't take away from her. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But it sounds like she knows Michael was murdered, she knows they are stealing from her, the estate, $ony, etc.. everyone and everything. She knows... but the memories, they can NEVER take those from her.

    Oh gosh, if that is true :-( poor Mrs Jackson. The weird thing is just before I read that on a webpage I had said to God just quietly, please God, help me to understand what is happening. I had seen the interview, but not until I read it now did I pick up on this.

    I understand I may be wrong. But its something I wanted to share and get opinions on?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found this concerning the images of Michael that have been refered to as the Invincible photoshoot. Concidering how Michael's hair looked throughout the 2000's, different wigs of varying texture that appeared almost helmet like, this reference makes the most sense. (I mean no disrespect to Michael! He was dealing with what many man have to deal with and that was a receding hairline as mentioned in the autopsy report.)

    It states the photographer as Albert Watson and that the images were taken in 1999 and released in 2000.

    More specifically:

    © Albert Watson

    “Michael Jackson,” taken 1999, printed 2000.

    This image is on display as a 96″ x 58″ C-print as part of the exhibition “Who Shot Rock & Roll” at the Brooklyn Museum through January 31, 2010. Read a preview of the exhibition on PDNPulse.

    Source:
    http://www.pdnphotooftheday.com/2009/11/2541

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello Bonnie,

    Also I saw the Jackson/Oprah interview.

    Re Oprah:
    On Sunday I wrote "I already hate some of the things she will say" with a sort of "keep the faith" general comment : BUT SHE DID IT (drugs, pyjamas, trial, etc.) ! her usual bitchy-bitch impudent style - maybe slightly smoothed for Mrs. Jackson. Impudent with Mr. Jackson and authoritative with MJ3 & their cousins. She loves asking questions on the 2005 trial already thoroughly answered by Tom Mesereau (but she never interviewed him!). So she is what she is: probably had to be that way to succeed in the media.

    Mrs. Katherine Kackson
    Bonnie, I join you: what a classy & lovely lady : I was emotional & would have liked as well to hug her like a good old mom on my heart. Mrs. Jackson is aboslutely sincere in her sorrow for Michael. She indeed replied impeccably - though another tougher mother in the same situation would have bounced back to Oprah scathingly on some eternal issues (as you did state). But this is her sweet nature & I fully respect & love her.

    As she cares for all her children, Mrs. Jackson feels obliged maybe to help financially as long as she lives & in addition to the MJ3 - the rest of the family with merchandising, publications on Michael, et..). The problem is that she is over 80 & a sweet person: I only pray that she & MJ3 don't get abused by abusers in their inner business circle (sorry but with Marc Schaffel, until otherwise proven, I am not convinced at all he is a good guy).
    It may also be that Mr & Mrs. Jackson still remain reserved on Michael's death issue due to Sony/Branca estate issues plus forthcoming hearings in Jan. 2011. In spite of all the tribulations of your life, good health & long life to you, Mrs. Jackson.

    MJ3 & cousins
    Simply adorable: I love all those kids. I thought I saw a glimpse of disapproval of Oprah in Prince's eyes before he first talks - but I may be wrong.

    Your next comments not only on the interview but on Sony, Murray & Co.... I await impatiently as usual. Thank you again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have to keep reminding myself I am looking at an 80 year old woman! Katherine is an amazing and extremely beautiful woman...inside and out. Her humble grace and elegance astound me.

    I think we are being shown more depth in Katherine and the situation. Witnessing even the edge of a mother's grief certainly touches the human side of us.

    Katherine's strength and presence are deep, apparent even on camera and explains a lot. I am seeing more of why Michael adored his mother so, where many of his mannerisms came from as well as his spiritual grounding and graciousness.

    I recognize Katherine's soft-spoken nature in her children.

    A few things nagging at me:

    Katherine said To Dr. Murray in the hospital -
    "Did he make it?"

    I have gotten the impression these past months that the Jackson family did not know what was going on with Michael in the hospital. Maybe that's the conclusion my mind came to based on lack of information? The implications of that are truly thought-provoking.

    I can't imagine the family sitting patiently but can imagine Joe in the face of hospital staff demanding information. Were they kept informed by hospital staff - doctor, nurse, intern - during that hours-long wait for the grim outcome?

    Logic tells me the family would have been arriving at the hospital over the course of HOURS. There would have been a hospital wing full of Jacksons awaiting news and supporting one another, if they knew how serious this was. Who of the family was there? Must we patch together many different interviews to know the answer? Then we have to sift through those answers?

    This is an amazingly intricate maze!

    The long wait hearing news...HOURS. Why were the children in "another room"? I've never heard of family being separated in a hospital, especially at a time like this. Why wasn't the family together as they awaited news of Michael's condition? I find that REALLY odd! And that Frank Dileo was the one we are told was with the children? (Not here by Katherine though.) Where were the brothers and Tito's boys, other family members?

    cont...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry - I forgot to mention earlier :

    Although I said & maintain that Mrs. Jackson replied impeccably, I however believe that she lost the apportunity to put back Oprah in her place on her "favorite" questions on trial, drugs, etc.. Taj Jackson said the family wanted to "put the record straight" but I personally do not see where it was done. The interview brought nothing really new except the pleasure to hear the kids who indeed put the record straight on their father & of course admire the personality & gentle character of Mrs. Katherine Jackson.

    ReplyDelete
  13. cont...

    Oprah: "Do you feel like he is always with you?" Katherine: "The memories are..."

    Some smooth side-stepping from Katherine! And, a lot of "I heard", "I read" and concerning intervention - "the children told me". (Meaning her children I believe.) She seems in the dark about a lot of things concerning Michael, without first-hand knowledge. That's probably the way it had to be.

    Sometimes our minds process things we see and hear into something they are not. I'm listening carefully to Katherine's words and don't ASSUME anything, or try not to.

    I'm watching this interview paying attention to whether things Katherine says fit 'death' or 'a mother's empathy' - for the decades of wounds inflicted upon her son; pain so excruciating that it would cause him to take extremely drastic measures. It is apparent to me that her comments so far fit both categories. But I'm still watching and will watch it again.

    Speaking of which, anybody notice all the bogus YouTube videos on this interview, and several uploaders with chopped up videos directing people to a website charging a membership fee to see it all? Some were being uploaded before the interview had finished airing but are 10+ minutes of repetition. I've had a job sifting through those to watch this.

    Thinking from a strategy point of view, Katherine's thoughts about Michael being addicted or not, and revealing that Michael had more nose surgeries than he admitted to...her honesty gave more weight to her adamantly denying the possibility that Michael was guilty in 2005.

    I'll try to explain...
    I think many people begin from a place of skepticism when listening to a mother talk about her child's innocence. Expecting blind support from a mother, the minds of many will automatically discount her words. Katherine's honesty can serve to shatter this blockage. In the mix - the press' twisted lies to the general public of "overwhelming evidence" while pointing to Michael's guilt, which still lingers today.

    I'm talking about the starting point where our minds have been conditioned to perceive information. Anybody know what I'm talking about? I often find myself having to re-center, sifting through my own preconceived notions.

    Anyway, this whole saga is a great opportunity to hone God-given abilities...discernment for one!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bonnie – why is that Oprah always asks the same old tired questions about child allegations, drug use whenever she interviews the Jacksons? What is that she is trying to achieve? I am so confused. This is beyond obsession.

    I was hoping this interview is to clear Michael’s name as Taj Jackson said on his tweet. Did anybody hear anything to clear his name?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. & Mrs. Jackson will not divorce: I'm HAPPY
    Also good health & long life to you Mr. Jackson.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Malcy from India - Thank you so much for coming to this blog to read. I am very humbled knowing that people from other countries come here to read this blog. It also reminds me of the responsibility I have to keep as close to the truth as we can. Please give my love to all the Michael fans in India. ♥ God Bless you.
    -----------------------------------------------
    @SandyK - It was very evident to me that even that TRIAL still hurt Katherine very much. That part made me angry all over again, just thinking of the evil that got between parents and common sense and THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Knowing that parents can use their children to try and destroy another human being? Those that came up with that idea? Katherine is right and not only wicked . . . EVIL.
    --------------------------------------------
    @Lady - You and Miss Katherine definitely share the same pain. Miss Katherine watched them try to do this to her son slowly, over years. You never completely heal over losing someone you love. I still believe that this didn't happen in vain and that something good is going to come of all this . . . I just do not know exactly what that is. I can only speak personally on this and that this woke me up, I got to know a wonderful human being, I saw unconditional love in action, and I learned why it was that God allowed me to endure the childhood I had. Without it I could never appreciate this experience. You almost have to have something taken from you in order to appreciate it. And you begin to see what is being aimed at our children today is an attempt at a total destruction of innocence, the parent-child relationship and the family unit.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @David - Thank you for the link. There are many on here that probably will not get to see that interview and would like to know what was said. I wonder if they will have it on youtube, because the facial expressions and the voice inflexions are just as important in analyzing. Especially Oprah's strange reaction to Miss Katherine's answer to how painful it was to lose him.
    ----------------------------------------------

    Mimi - Oddly enough I didn't cry when Miss Katherine talked about June 25th. I cried when she was answering questions about the trial and what it did to him. I remembered like yesterday the first time I was going through those videos and watching Michael's face. I believe I lost that emotional connection about the 25th when Miss Katherine mentioned Murray being the one who told her he "was gone" when Murray all this time was supposed to have been GONE when they arrived at the hospital, then again when she refused to hold Murray responsible for his death. There were some questions there that made me pull back.
    ----------------------------------------------

    @Lonely - becoming addicted to pain killers is easy. With me, it wasn't just to kill pain. At first it was, but there are also other side effects that you crave. Lortab affected me by giving me this incredible sense of mellowness and wellbeing. I was happy! It not only dulled pain receptors in the brain it also heightened the pleasure receptors. That is what I craved. I took my normal dose, but when they began weening me off of it, the substitutes did not do as much for the pain as the Lortab did and I asked the doctor for stronger stuff. He knew! He told me, "Bonnie, the medicine is for pain relief, it is not to completely eliminate it." He gave me a half a week's worth of the Lortab and told me to take two a day, then one a day, then one every other day. I didn't do that. I took one a day and tried to stretch it out, taking it only when I went to bed. Then the doctor told me not to do that because that behavior would cause insomnia and I would then need pain killers to sleep. It was a struggle!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Maria - Thank you very much for your warm compliments. I concur with you on your sentiments on Miss Katherine. My husband just fell in love with her when I showed him an interview with her on Youtube. On Oprah, I have to say she was rather tame in this interview. Only two questions she asked that I was uncomfortable with and that was about the child molestation charges and the drug issue. I am going to cover more of this on the second edition of this interview tonight on this blog.
    ----------------------------------------------
    @Lonely - I took what Katherine said about "them" taking away from her is that she knows WHO IT IS and WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.

    Remember that in the last year many of the people who were surrounding or trying to surround and infiltrate the Jackson's have been exposed, even though some of them are still trying to bamboozle the fans as Lady had stated in a previous post. Justice will come but there is still more that has to be done and that takes time. So much has happened out of this to be thankful for and as far as THIS INTERVIEW goes? Just one more step in getting Michael's name cleared and moving that light into the corners where vermin are still trying to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  19. SandyK - For the link provided to the "Who Shot Rock and Roll" exhibition, this photo is not listed. It is only listed on that forum you provided a link for. When you get a chance, blow up the picture and focus specifically on his eyes, his mouth, his neck (one series of shots in particular, the skin on his neck looks loose . . sorry Michael) and his HANDS!!! Michael was not this thin in 2000 or 1999 and he most definitely did not look this old. And he DEFINITELY did not have the arthritis on his left pinky finger back in 1999-2000. These pictures are much more recent!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here is the other link to the actual description of that exhibit (it is a traveling one):

    http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/rock_and_roll/touring.php

    The PnDpurse link that forum gave goes to a 404 page cannot be found. Isn't that funny?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bonnie, regarding the "pole dancing" pictures... I must be missing something here, because - aren't they from the same photo session of which some pictures are included inside the 2001 Invincible CD leaflet?
    @Lady - can I send you a very big hug? I am so sorry for your loss, I can't begin to imagine what it must feel like, being a mom myself. You are a very resourceful woman and your spirit is really amazing. Love.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Regarding "Michael" and the big hoopla, this comes from Jackie Jackson's Twitter (http://twitter.com/JackieJackson5):

    A lot of you have been asking me about this.... about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    My friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album. about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    Unfortunately, our concerns were not taken seriously about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck

    Note: Jackie clearly states, "My friend John McClain (co-executor)"... "Pals" with the Estate??? Did everyone catch that one??? In any case, I am aware of the "stink" that McClain has raised regarding the upcoming release of "Michael". In any case, I suspect it would NOT be surprising if this CD never gets marketed as planned by Sony. The Cascios are likely in a heck of a lot of hot water here, and it is they WILL likely be sued for some form of fraud, I'm pretty sure. That's my best guess. Just wait and see till then...

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Bonnie: "When you get a chance, blow up the picture and focus specifically on his eyes, his mouth, his neck (one series of shots in particular, the skin on his neck looks loose . . sorry Michael) and his HANDS!!! Michael was not this thin in 2000 or 1999 and he most definitely did not look this old. And he DEFINITELY did not have the arthritis on his left pinky finger back in 1999-2000. These pictures are much more recent!"

    I suspect these photos were closer to around 2005, maybe even 2006. I especially was amused with your noticing of the arthritis on his left pinky finger. In any case, that too is yet another in an ever increasing list of "odd links" between he and I. Especially, the SAME finger! Yikes... SMH wondering if it's "happy hour" yet. I could really use a few right now. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  24. LineCH - Did you get the impression that Oprah held back? I certainly did. I thought she was incredibly respectful of Miss Katherine other than those two questions I didn't like. They are staple yellow-journalism questions and Miss Katherine as well as others had already answered these questions. I did not see the point of Oprah bringing them up yet again other than, it was expected for her to do so.

    I also believe that Miss Katherine was NOTHING BUT sincere in her pain, but I also hold reserve of interpreting because I don't believe Michael is gone in the absolute sense of the word.
    --------------------------------------------
    @Truthbtold - Your question about Miss Katherine's question "did he make it?" Yes, I thought her reaction to ALL the question about Murray were odd. She did not want to commit to guilt on his part, she did not want to answer questions about those involved (just like Lisa Marie . . . people have been coached) and the fact that she stated that Murray was the one who told her Michael was 'gone' after a "long time" before a doctor came out when Murray was supposed to have scooted shortly after arriving at the hospital, and after being asked and refusing to sign the death certificate. I am also taking into consideration the amount of time that has passed but you don't forget the passing of your son or the incidents surrounding it that easily either.

    Miss Katherine said that the children were in another room when she first arrived and she did not see them and did not know they were there at first. I can imagine the confusion surrounding all this as family members arrive and I am thinking that it may have been because certain parties were supposed to know things that other parties were not as things happened and it all depended on who was with whom when people started arriving. They definitely wanted information controlled around this for obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @LineCH said - "Taj Jackson said the family wanted to "put the record straight" but I personally do not see where it was done. "

    >>>>>I do see where the record was put strait as to who Michael is and I believe that is why Oprah again asked the question again, this time to his Mother Katherine. This is the first time Katherine was asked this question by Oprah AFTER Michael's passing. Oprah could establish to the public that Miss Katherine's views on her son had not changed now that he was gone. Since Oprah's audience IS the largest in the U.S. this is why I believe they allowed her to ask this question yet again. Same with the drugs. This was again danced around. Intervention and talk of it, I found it odd that Miss Katherine HEARD that one was attempted. She did not have part in this? What kind of an intervention? This whole discussion surrounding drug dependency was artfully done. Not to disrespect Miss Katherine at all, but the actual mention of the word drugs was centered around the time that Michael sought rehab for it and she made a point of mentioning the Pepsi commercial accident, but talk of Intervention was subtly separated from the word "drug". I also applaud Miss Katherine in sharing talk with Michael about her fears about what she was hearing concerning his drug use and Michael's reply that even his own mother didn't believe him. We do not know or were not told WHEN this conversation actually took place.

    I want to expound on Michael's children in the next blog update because there were many, many I don't know what to call them . . . signs? Clues? - In their segment of this interview.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Listen up!!! "Breaking News" Acapella.version. Sony says this PROVES it's MJ: http://bit.ly/b2jwxt You decide...

    As for me? I say it's Michael.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Truthbtold said - "peaking of which, anybody notice all the bogus YouTube videos on this interview, and several uploaders with chopped up videos directing people to a website charging a membership fee to see it all? Some were being uploaded before the interview had finished airing but are 10+ minutes of repetition. I've had a job sifting through those to watch this."

    Truth, no I did not see these and that is appalling! Could you give the url so I can add that to tonight's blog? I would like to warn people about this.
    -----------------------------------------------

    Mimi said - "why is that Oprah always asks the same old tired questions about child allegations, drug use whenever she interviews the Jacksons? What is that she is trying to achieve?" and "Did anybody hear anything to clear his name?"

    >>>>As I stated in another comment above, my interpretation of that was that A. the questions were expected to be asked and they were approved for the purpose of getting Miss Katherine's answers out there to the larger audience of Oprah's. This was Michael's mother, who has more credibility than others that were interviewed and asked these same questions. That was to clear his name to a larger audience. Yes, I heard what Miss Katherine said to clear her son's name and I know it's all been said before, but not by Michael's Mother TO Oprah's audience.

    I did not like the questions either, but I see their purpose.

    Also I believe June mentioned a look of distrust in the eyes of Prince when Oprah was present and talking to them. I agree with that and as a budding directory/film producer, he has probably been educated on the editing process by his dad and what can be done to an interview to twist and manipulate the outcome. Very astute observation!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lady said - "Listen up!!! "Breaking News" Acapella.version. Sony says this PROVES it's MJ: http://bit.ly/b2jwxt You decide..."

    This bites . . . I can't listen to it. My husband's SPEAKERS are still packed away and my computer is 11 hours away as I sit in this hotel room trying to work with HALF of my needed tools. Can someone else listen to this for me and give me their honest opinion?

    Also, if several tracks were removed from this CD or it was attempted according to Jackie Jackson, that tells me that SOMEONE believes it is a fake Michael voice. I heard the track "Breaking News" played on a news segment on television. It did NOT sound at all like Michael. I guess I will have to wait until Friday night to hear the acapella version. Lady, can you keep that link up for me until then? Thank you! ♥

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Lady - I did not see any arthritis present on Michael's 2005 photos either and I have HUNDREDS OF THEM. I can buy 2007 - 2009, but not 2005.

    SandyK - I don't have the inside CD jacket of Invincible. I am looking at the photos presented. Is it possible to scan that to the computer if you have it? I would love to compare. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Has anybody shared this link regarding "Breaking News"

    http://kingofpop.info/news/2010/11/09/real-breaking-news-from-sony-breaking-news-is-not-michael-jackson/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Michael Jackson's New Album Faces Obstacles: http://huff.to/cdVHmF

    NOTE the keywords in this article: "But not so happy are Michael's nephews, the three sons of Tito Jackson. The Jacksons have always been wary of the Cascios: after all, Michael liked the relatively normal Italian-American family from New Jersey more than his own blood relatives. Tito's kids -- known as 3T -- had recorded with Uncle Michael early in their career, but not in recent years. When the news broke, the 3Ts weren't happy. Why hadn't Uncle Michael left them a legacy like this?"

    ***Sorry all, but this DOES make a lot of sense to me in all fair reality here. It then goes on to say:

    "In the last few weeks Sony has had to call in forensic audiologists to prove that the voice on the Cascio tracks is that of Michael Jackson. (The conclusion: it is.) The 3Ts, I am told, along with co-executor John McClain, have claimed it's a Jacko impersonator. It's not about money. It's about ego, and pride. Sony wants to include five of the Cascio songs right away on the new album."

    Sorry everyone, but with this in mind and the acapella version of "Breaking News" made available today: http://bit.ly/b2jwxt also, I believe it's Michael. That's the end of this "is it Michael?" BS for me at least. I simply refuse to get swept up in a feud because of a bunch of bruised egos.

    Note to Bonnie: I'll save it for ya.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bonnie : "Also I believe June mentioned a look of distrust in the eyes of Prince when Oprah was present and talking to them."

    No, it was LineCH - but that's OK, no worry, be happy - LOL

    Bonnie : "I also believe that Miss Katherine was NOTHING BUT sincere in her pain, but I also hold reserve of interpreting because I don't believe Michael is gone in the absolute sense of the word*.

    Intriguing! hoax theory ? I know you mentioned it in the past but you have really enough on your plate with your house & the blogs so, no worry, I don't intend to develop now an out of context subject.

    Many thanks again for your answers.
    God bless you

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bonnie, it wasn't me who mentioned a "look of distrust in the eyes of Prince when Oprah was present and talking to them"; I did see the comment but don't recall whose it was; but I DO agree with the commenter. Prince, to me, was fidgety, but hard to tell about Prince, this being the very first time we have heard anything from him (to my knowledge). Teenagers, hard to figure out even under the best of circumstances (which this is not).

    IMO, Oprah was very intrusive (even though some questions might have been screened ahead of time), when she asks if Katherine ever had any suspicions Michael was guilty, did she expect an affirmative answer? Just another method to bring up that same subject on O's part. And all the talk of plastic surgery, why would Katherine volunteer so much? And showing the picture of Michael at about 8 from Katherine's book and asking is THIS how you remember him; then coercing her into saying yes; as a mom, one picks up on these things; we remember our children many different ways at many different ages.

    I'm worried about Katherine and her business affiliations. Just today, Howard Mann posts a GIANT mea culpa on the Michael Jackson Fan Club site, begging foregiveness for posting his "free" Opis One track over the weekend on TMZ, calling himself stupid and asking that his actions not be attributed to Katherine. Big of him.

    And at the end of O's interview there is a credit to VintagePop, the company owned by Vaccaro, who "helped" Katherine publish her book. And I'll bet dumb old Oprah is not even aware of VintagePop's litigious history with the Jacksons, Oprah having done absolutely no research into Michael or his family or she would not continue her attempts to decimate Michael's legacy.

    When Oprah came to the Jacksons' door, she says "thanks for inviting me"; giving credence to the recent story that the interview was at the Jacksons' behest. I don't want this to be the truth, so I'm surmising Oprah inserted that "thanks for inviting me" after the interview was taped (is Martin Bashir in the audience)?

    Looking forward to your Part 2, Bonnie, but don't stay up too late!

    ReplyDelete
  34. All I will say is that Paris is such a bright, beautiful child! I love that kid. So mature for her age.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lady - thank you. Huffington posts confirms it for you? Are you now saying that 3T is bashing Michael's album over sheer jealousy? This is the HUFFINGTON POST.

    In a previous blog, there was a family of deer staring me in the face, wanting me to follow them. Two adult deer, male and female, and eight younger deer . . . siblings, and one ripped apart on the stairs. In the dream I shut the door on them afraid to follow them. I am NOT going to do that in reality.

    Huffington Post vs Jackson family on integrity. Hmmm . . . THAT'S a tough one, isn't it? Since when did SONY rise above the fray? You're entitled to your opinion but I strongly, STRONGLY disagree with you. We will keep an eye on this most definitely.
    ---------------------------------------------

    LineCH - I am so sorry!!!! Please forgive me and thank you for pointing that out :o)

    You said "Intriguing! hoax theory ? I know you mentioned it in the past but you have really enough on your plate with your house & the blogs so, no worry, I don't intend to develop now an out of context subject."

    Hoax theory . . . now there's a dirty word. But which hoax theory? No I agree, there are issues that are back burner for right now because the truth is being laid out before us in bits and pieces. Why? Justice first.

    I have said before, I have never closed the door on the possibility that he beat them. I just cannot sell him that short. For this reason and that of that trial, I will stick closer to Michael and the Jackson family because they are the ones that have and will reveal the truth of what happened. There is lots of information, truth and other, sprinkled around out there. I will use it but I will always go to THEM for verification.

    Now I must go if I am going to get part 2 of this blog done. ♥♥♥

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sorry Bonnie but I can't find those videos now. Maybe they were removed because once there were some legitimate copies of this interview on YouTube their scamming opportunity was gone? I don't know. But it was really irritating for me yesterday when bogus videos of this interview were all I could find. For some videos it seemed people just wanted to increase their views rating. One description had a link for watching the entire interview that ended up on a poker site. Disgusting and frustrating!

    There is plenty to choose from now to be able to watch this on YouTube.

    This one in 3 parts is what I finally found and watched:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnPFQnJ6cp8

    It's not a perfect copy, a few glitches and annoying ABC ads but it's watchable.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hello Bonnie,
    Good comments on this blog. I must say this, maybe Murray is telling the truth when he said he did not give MJ anything that would kill him. "He's gone" is what Mother J said after inquiring about MJ's condition. She said it took sooooo long for her to be informed. The inconsistencies are becoming more and more blatant. Either everyone is not in the know and some assuming has been presented as truth/fact or all parties involved can't keep their stories straight.

    I remember a interview that Teddy Riley gave on a radio station were he said MJ gave him names of individuals that he felt were trying to harm him. He said after MJ passed he told certain family members and the next thing he knew he was being quoted in a tabloid. He knew who he told and who else was present at the time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS3kfx1CeH0

    What this told me was family members were selling stories to the press. Just because they are family does not mean they can be trusted. Money Money Money...

    Remember the three body guards interview and the one stated how Randy J demanded to see MJ one day and threatened to go to the press if he didn't see him. According to the body guard MJ did not see him regardless of the threat.

    With all respect to the Jackson family, it is a reason why MJ refused to perform or work with them and kept his distance. Go back to the Victory Tour and some of the business circumstances surrounding it along with the attitudes from certain family members.

    If you read up on why MJ's parents along with Jermaine was sued you will get a better idea of MJ's feelings towards his family when it comes to business and money.

    http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/06/28/michael-jackson-moonies-want-millions-from-his-parents

    Remember the concert lawsuit that was dismissed just a few weeks back and many thought Frank Dileo was the instigator? Hmmmmmm... One thing I believe for sure, Mrs Jackson told the truth when she said MJ told her he could not trust anyone but her.

    This also brings to mind the TMZ Live interview with Dr Arnie Klein. He explained why he sent a lawyer to court during the custody hearing for MJ3 and why he suggested that the children needed their own lawyer to represent thier interest. It makes sense sadly.

    By no means am I saying or suggesting that MJ did not love his family, I believe that he did. Trusting them is a different story. If you go back to a interview of Tom Messerue talking about MJ, he said certain family members doubted his innocence.

    Bonnie to fully understand MJ one has to look at "all" the contributing factors to his pain and troubles.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bonnie and Lady, I wanted to add: Lady, I don't think Taj Jackson and his brothers are acting out of jealousy in this instance, and I don't believe, just my opinion, that Michael shunned them in any manner by going to the Cascios in 2007 (if that's what really happened). He might have wanted to stay out of the LA "limelight" during this time. I'm trusting to memory here and will check to verify when I get home, but I recall that Taj and his brothers are contingent beneficiaries of Michael's trust/will, no other relative aside from Katherine and MJ3 get anything. No other relative whatsoever. So I believe he loved his nephews, Tito's sons, and they loved and respected him in return. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't believe jealousy is the motivation for T3's expressed concerns about the authenticity of the album.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sorry Bonnie. I don't mean to offend but I remember this (listen carefully at 4:53 into the recording on YT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAzarSbfPEk "The Jackson family, they lived in a ghetto in Gary, Indiana and they made it, and they're so tight knit. Tight knit, my ass.", Michael Jackson.

    As much as I believe that Michael DID love his family, there was "drama" not too much unlike what is happening now that Michael despised and tried very hard to avoid as well. It's one of many reasons why Michael tended to NOT want to not do concerts with his family, nor have much else to do with many of them. It's sad, but we all need to consider this as well alongside what is going on. I'm just taking a cautious approach to it all, and I figure that if 3T and McClain want to raise heck over the whole deal, let them. Little by little, and more and more, with everything that is coming out regarding this whole mess-- it's showing me that this whole thing IS over a bunch of "bruised egos." Sorry...

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ Lady -
    Wow, now they are trashing the characters of Tito's boys? I guess those beautiful boys must have somehow become a threat. Wonder if it has anything to do with their 'Code Z' series. Or maybe it's just because they are staunch defenders of their beloved uncle.

    Huffing article sounds like a Jackson family bashing to me. But, surely it has a purpose. Take for example the first 2 paragraphs:

    "Even in death, Michael Jackson can't catch a break.

    Sony and his estate are trying to put together an album of his unreleased materials. Their original plan was to get it out for Christmas and holiday sales. But they're being thwarted at every turn."

    What I see is an attempt to align Michael with Sony and the business of his estate, in effect giving their business decisions validity.

    Then there's statements like this:

    "They'd escaped from an estate in northern Virginia, where Michael had sought refuge after a short stint in Las Vegas. He had no place else to go."

    Key words - escaped (really, ESCAPED?!), refuge, short stint. A waif on the run...homeless, penniless with no friends or family. Why paint that kind of picture of him?

    I think several of the comments sum this article up:

    "Will we never again be able to simply relax in the knowledge that someone is being professional when it comes to reporting?"

    "this info doesn't pass the smell test, sorry. best to disregard this entirely. (just when i thought it was safe to read HuffPo)"

    "Who is your family 'source' Mr. Friedman?
    And Mr. Friedman, if you are such an expert on all things Michael Jackson, then you
    know he hated being called Jacko. Shame on you."

    "Like so much information about MJ, who knows how much of this is true? This Friedman piece is getting picked up and repeated on the web, making it seem as if it must be true."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Truthbtold said - "Sorry Bonnie but I can't find those videos now. Maybe they were removed because once there were some legitimate copies of this interview on YouTube their scamming opportunity was gone?"

    >>>That's okay, I can't hear them anyway and won't be able to do a doggone thing until I get home anyway. Tired of trying to work without my "tools" on my own computer and people coming here to post things I can't refute or research because I don't have time because I'm stuck in a freaking hotel room with a computer with no speakers in the process of trying to complete a move. So here's what I'm going to do.

    If it is a QUESTIONABLE SOURCE I am not going to post it until I can check it out and listen for myself. So if you don't see your post, don't be offended, just assume that it's a source in which I need audio and I can not post it until I hear it.

    Roger Friedman in Huffington Post? That pretty much answers everything! Thank you Truth - consider that source now disregarded.

    The Jackson family WILL NOT BE BASHED ON THIS BLOG!

    And as far as whoever posted the interview with Tom Mesereau saying family members did not believe Michael, that source BETTER BE POSTED HERE or that comment is getting deleted. I have never heard Tom Mesereau say that. If it is in reference to LaToya and that stupid book, we already know the story on that one.

    The second part to this blog will be posted late tonight. I'm going to see my Bible Study partners one last time before I say goodbye to them. Tomorrow I see my boys whom I am leaving behind in Maryland and I won't see again probably until the summer . . .KILLING ME!

    Lady - Just so you understand, you are not offending me. It's frustrating not to be able to hear things I need to listen to and have people post their opinion on my blog with me being at a handicap. Just bear with me, okay?

    Be back later tonight. Try to lay off the Jackson family until I get back.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lady - thank you. Huffington posts confirms it for you? Are you now saying that 3T is bashing Michael's album over sheer jealousy? This is the HUFFINGTON POST.

    In a previous blog, there was a family of deer staring me in the face, wanting me to follow them. Two adult deer, male and female, and eight younger deer . . . siblings, and one ripped apart on the stairs. In the dream I shut the door on them afraid to follow them. I am NOT going to do that in reality.

    Huffington Post vs Jackson family on integrity. Hmmm . . . THAT'S a tough one, isn't it? Since when did SONY rise above the fray? You're entitled to your opinion but I strongly, STRONGLY disagree with you. We will keep an eye on this most definitely.
    ----------------------------------

    First, this has NOTHING to do with integrity. And no... Sony hasn't risen above the fray either. As I have stated earlier, this whole issue over "Breaking News" is smoke. In the meantime, WHO is dealing with the fire??? Nobody apparently is because they're all to busy in an 80's remake of the "Is it live or is it Memorex?" commercials except now via 2010 it's "Is it Michael, or WHO is it?"

    My bottom line to all of this is, "WHERE is the justice for Michael?" and to the whole "smoke" I say open the windows and stop being sidetracked. Let's get back to the fire.

    The only other thing that all this "is it Michael?" war has done, has made me want to purchase the CD just for pure Collector's value. It will be guaranteed to make me laugh till I die! Why? Tell me when (if ever) in recent times that ANYTHING pertaining to Michael did NOT generate a controversy of some sort. Now you can understand my laughing, because even dead... Michael creates a ruckass! Muahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hey Bonnie...why not go pick up a cheap pair of headphones? That would solve one problem.

    Just an idea...

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ June: "Lady, I don't think Taj Jackson and his brothers are acting out of jealousy in this instance, and I don't believe, just my opinion, that Michael shunned them in any manner by going to the Cascios in 2007 (if that's what really happened)."

    Under most circumstance, I would agree. However, (and this is just MY thought-- no one has to share it) what IF a few 3T based songs/recordings got "bumped" in favor of the Cascio ones??? You have to admit... that would draw fire. It's only human.

    There's something else here... the Cascio recordings were made in 2007. What if the 3T "approved" recordings were done several years prior? Not that it really makes any difference, but I think I understand what the "deal" is here...

    In short, $ony may have wanted to go with more RECENT recordings first, and yes... it's quite possible that 3T related music could have been scrapped from "Michael", at least for the time being.

    SPECIAL NOTING: 3T has NOT released any recordings since 2004-- 6 yrs. ago!!! Also interestingly they have only released to albums (Brotherhood, issued in 1995 and Identity issued in 2004). So is the possibility there for some "bruised egos"? Yes.

    Another concern I have is the "stink" that John McClain has raised, and the fact that many have said it's over "control issues" regarding "Michael."

    So oh yay... Power trips and egos... Would you like fries with your order? lol...

    ReplyDelete
  45. As many of you know, Jason Malachi is the one many are naming as being the "voice" rather than Michael on "Breaking News." Well, Jason had something to say about that today...

    Jason_Malachi i am not associated with the #new #mj #breakingnews song. If it was really me, it would be alot harder to tell! about 11 hours ago via web

    Source: http://twitter.com/Jason_Malachi

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Lady,

    I am sorry about your lose. I can imagine how you felt when Michael’s mother talking about her son. It is true sometimes you can’t overcome the loss of a child. Be strong and let God’s love be with you.


    The best moment for me from the interview when Paris said:

    Michael is the best cook and he makes the best French toast and breakfast.

    When she said they went on the roof top in Las Vegas to watch the light (I guess the city light) and eat sneakers and drink soda. I can really see Michael climbing on top of the roof.

    When she said she missed everything. Oh God, did you see her eyes and her entire demeanor showing she really missed him and it is like deep within her and she did not want to let go.

    What is your best moment?

    ReplyDelete
  47. On a fun note to put peeps in a better mood around here...

    I've been a "slightly" naughty girl thanks to all this talk and viewing of a certain "poledancer". Anyway... I dusted off my photo archives and posted something far "prettier". You'll have to check out my blog page in order to see. I'm NOT telling what it is, but I DO warn you to have a drool towel ready. http://ladyaquarius62.blogspot.com/

    Muahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well, looks like it's "Mission Accomplished" for Oprah! She had her highest rated show of the year yesterday! Let's see Oprah's checklist: Interview MJ's first ex-wife? Check! Interview MJ's parents and kids? Check! Interview MJ's second ex-wife? That's next!

    http://www.deadline.com/2010/11/oprah-posts-600th-week-as-no-1-talk-show-hits-season-high-with-the-jackson-kids/

    BTW Bonnie, send me an email, and I'll send you the transcripts!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bonnie said, "SandyK - I don't have the inside CD jacket of Invincible. I am looking at the photos presented. Is it possible to scan that to the computer if you have it? I would love to compare. Thank you."

    Unfortunately, I don't own the Invincible album on CD so I won't be able to create that scan for you. Very sorry about that Bonnie.

    BTW, I wanted to add another reference for the Invincible photoshoot. The photographer, Albert Watson, who took the sequence of photos in question has a web site that displays his portfolio which includes those same images, similar to what is shown inside the jacket of the Invincible album, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately you have to go through a series of over 100 images inorder to get to the ones with Michael in them. The images of him are numbered 130/228 and 131/228 and are the only images of Michael that he displays in his on-line portfolio. Before you get to those, there are a number of landscapes, still life images, and portraits related to other subjects, many of which include nudity...just as a warning. That being said, and just for clarification, the 2 images of Michael are the ones that, for the most part, have been discussed over the last few days and do NOT contain nudity. Thankfully, Michael's dignity remains intact.

    Mr. Watson's website doesn't appear to let you jump to the images you want. As a result, with all due respect to Mr. Watson, it's a major chore getting to Michael's images. The reason I've included this is because Mr. Watson has included dates for all his photographs including the ones for Michael which he notes were taken in 1999. For me, this date makes the most sense because of the way his hair looks in these images. After 1999, Michael's hair never looked like this again, and not just because he wanted to change his hair style. Due to thinning, he relied more and more on wigs.

    Source:
    http://www.albertwatson.net/

    ReplyDelete
  50. I regret that I will not have time tonight to get that second installment up on this interview because we got back late from this dinner. I will miss these people and it was worth the extra time. Tomorrow Morning I will have this posted and please accept my apologies and thank you for your patience.

    Love to all and God Bless you. I am never moving again. ♥

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bonnie – I have INVINCIBLE album. Are you looking for the pictures inside? I can scan the inside jacket of the album for you. Please let me know if you want me to do that and where to send it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Bonnie, I feel so badly for you tonight. Not just because you're stuck in a hotel without your pc and reference tools, but because you're saying goodbye to your two sons. I didn't realize how emotional this entire move has been for you, and yet you still manage to keep this blog... and us going! Just want you to know I'm thinking of you and can't wait until you're settled at home once and for all, and permanently anchored in front of your computer!

    A little thinking out loud here. So far I agree with your assessment of the Oprah interview, from Ms. Katherine's demeanor to Oprah's predictability, to Prince's guarded demeanor. Did you sense a definite aloofness from Prince as he walked up to Oprah to shake her hand? While his manners were very proper, he did not crack a smile and gave off a subtle negative vibe as if he went into this knowing he had reason not to like her. I got the feeling he did not enjoy being there. He is adorable, yet mature beyond his 13 years.

    We're all finding inconsistencies with certain comments that conflict with others that it makes you wonder if everyone could have used a few more briefings! For instance, I thought Ms. Katherine's comment to Oprah of asking Dr. Murray about Michael, "did he make it?" was an oddly phrased question. If she had no idea what was going on or even why Michael was brought to the hospital, what would prompt Katherine to ask such an ominous question, DID HE MAKE IT? That would imply having some knowledge of a DIRE situation. Or...perhaps Katherine's question was meant to imply another kind of "departure."

    She tells Oprah that Murray finally told her that Michael was "gone." Gone...where? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Katherine not once mentioned whether or not she actually saw Michael in the hospital. In the interview she gave on the one year anniversary, she said she never saw Michael after he passed (00:48), and she also said in another interview that she wanted to remember him as he looked when she last saw him, alive and happy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juDMFspwuzs

    ReplyDelete
  53. @lady - your comment re power trips and egos (and the album) yes I agree, but I still say 3T wasn't part of the problem. Taj Jackson has only come out in defense of his Uncle Mike when some issue has been raised. And I do know he and his brothers are the only CONTINGENT beneficiaries of Michael's trust; no other brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, nuthin, except Katherine, MJ3 and (contingently) 3T, so Michael was thinking of those three nephews.

    As for the power struggles, it's the music business we are discussing, what else should we expect, especially on so important an issue as this album.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Something else. Katherine told Oprah how Paris was saying at the hospital after Michael died, "Daddy, I can't make it without you...I want to go with you." I WANT TO GO WITH YOU? Her father was dead, right? Again, it just sounds like an odd thing to say, whereas, "don't leave me, Daddy!" sounds more natural, but not "I want to go with you." If we are exploring the theory that Michael may have beaten the odds and survived that fateful night, then some of these things would make more sense to me.

    Regarding Oprah confronting Joe about those beatings, it would have been nice to hear Joe express some regret in hindsight for being so brutal. He stuck by his guns and played around with semantics on "whipping" versus "beating," where even Oprah said, "what's the difference when it leaves welts on your body?" Instead, Joe defended his actions by saying none of his boys ended up dead or in jail. That made him appear cold and callous, because one of his precious boys IS dead. And all I can think of is the day when Joe pushed Michael into a pile of musical instruments in a fit of anger for some ridiculous reason. Michael was banged up pretty bad with bruised ribs, and he had to perform with that pain! The poor boy was thin and light as a feather that I can't imagine doing that to someone I love...ever! (Sorry, Bonnie, but when I think of things like this, I get lost in a sea of tears, it's really too much somemtimes.) I support the Jackson family for all the right reasons, but when Joe puts himself out there with stuff like this, he has to expect outrage from people who love his son! He would have gained some serious points if he had shown some remorse with Oprah, but he didn't do it.

    On a positive note at the end, after hearing the children say what a great father Michael was, Oprah said she was glad to hear that because it was the main reason for the show, to shatter some misconceptions about Michael and show the world what a great father he really was. I honestly did not expect that from Oprah, but I am glad it came at the end, where the viewers often remember a closing remark or parting shot.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I personally, have no problem believing that this bashing of the Michael album is over bruised egos.

    To me, the scenario fits to a "T". "3T" that is.

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

    But seriously, I can see where egos would be hurt and males have the biggest egos of all.

    So, yes, I agree with the Huffington Post on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  56. lcpledwards74 said...
    "Well, looks like it's "Mission Accomplished" for Oprah! She had her highest rated show of the year yesterday! Let's see Oprah's checklist: Interview MJ's first ex-wife? Check! Interview MJ's parents and kids? Check! Interview MJ's second ex-wife? That's next!"

    To add to your list, she interviewed his older brother Jackie a few days ago and interviewed Janet a few months ago. Could there be a Debbie Rowe interview in the works? Does Debbie's divorce settlement/confidentiality agreement allow for that I wonder? I know she's prohibited from writing any books about Michael and their relationship. We shall see.

    Peace and love to all!!!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Simo said...
    "Bonnie, regarding the "pole dancing" pictures... I must be missing something here, because - aren't they from the same photo session of which some pictures are included inside the 2001 Invincible CD leaflet?"

    If I may, yes, they are the same images. The thing that was new was the availablity of individual images from that photoshoot that aren't part of a series of images spliced closely together like the original composition.

    I respect that Bonnie may have a different response.

    Peace and love to all!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hello Bonnie,

    I mentioned the Tom Messerue interview only to stress my point that certain family members did not always believe in him. I was not trying to bash his family. I come from a dysfunctional family and I have trust issues with certain family members too sooooo I definitly can relate. Certain ones I have purposely distance myself from to maintain my sanity but we pull together when needed. I love them but I know them and their capabilities especially when it comes to money. Its an ugly truth that I have first hand experience dealing with. We are not dealing with multi-millions but a significant amount that has brought the ugly side out of certain members of my family for several years now. It has been emotionally devastating for me. I forgave them but the scars are tender and I am very guarded emotionally.

    In MJ's case he not only had to deal with backstabbing business associates, lawyers, exwives, media(domestic and international) and yes certain family members for years. Jealousy rivalry and probably some bitterness is a reality when you are dealing with the type of success that MJ obtained. If you listen to the tapes on YT MJ talks about certain issues in regards to his family. I have no doubt he loved his family but he knows his family better than any of us ever will. Those tapes didn't just appear on YT by themselves. I believe they were uploaded so all that are interested can listen and get a better understanding of him as a person, a man, a human being. The truth is not always pretty.

    I do believe that there is a business plan and a personal plan involved with MJ's "passing" and not all of his family members are aware of all the details. Certain contraversies were planned and others are a direct result from assumptions and personal agendas. There is a reason for the madness in this tangles web.

    Bonnie I respect the hard work you put into this Blog. I never mean to offend but only express my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hi Bonnie.

    This person's comments to an article really helped me not only understand the controversy around "Breaking News" but even more so, appreciate the genius in Michael Jackson, and why his music IMO is so far above and pleases my inner spirit like no other♥ (there are 7 comments in total)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/dogolvr?action=comments&display=blog&sort=newest

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hi, Bonnie
    You were looking for the Invincible booklet. I found it at discogs. Here it is.It has the pole photos on the middle of it.
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1877048
    LYM
    AnaPassionHeart

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bonnie said:
    "Miss Katherine said that the children were in another room when she first arrived and she did not see them and did not know they were there at first."

    It sounds like her nephew (Michael's cousin) was the first (and only?) person she saw upon arriving - "Pray Aunt Kate, just pray that everything's ok." But it was reported that Katherine was one of the first to arrive at the hospital. Did Michael's cousin get word of Michael being in the hospital before his mother or was he nearer at the time? And, this nephew, same one who was with her when she got the news that Michael was gone? She gave no name.

    Her nephew is all Katherine mentioned as to who was with her when Murray gave her the news. She goes on to say "His children were there, his children and um but they were in another room, I didn't know they were there." Michael's kids came in after Katherine was told and they were told, separately, according to Katherine. So, they didn't see each other until after 2:26pm when he was pronounced dead.

    Dissecting Katherine's answer to "Where were you?"...

    Timeline for reference:

    10:40am - propofol administered according to Murray.
    10:52-11am - Michael stopped breathing according to Murray.
    12:21pm - Ambulance called, arrives minutes later.
    1:14pm - Michael in full cardiac arrest upon arrival to hospital.
    2:26pm - Pronounced dead.

    "I was, I had gone out field service that morning and uh Joe (who was in Las Vegas) had called me..." Oprah then clarifying what "field service" is. (Wish she wouldn't have interrupted Katerine here!!!) Katherine - "But that was earlier. Then when I got home I got a call to come to the hospital. But Joseph had called in between and told me that somebody left Michael's house in an ambulance and they had the whole body covered up." ... "So they called me and said come to the hospital, Michael's in the hospital. He was dead then but they didn't tell me."

    That sure leaves me with a lot of questions!
    It certainly sounds like Joe called her in the MORNING about Michael. Why didn't she rush over to Michael's house then? But then she says Joe told her a body was leaving in an ambulance, which would have been later in the afternoon. (A 2nd phone call from Joe?) Why would she then wait until she was TOLD to come to the hospital? Gee...vagueness, some of this sounds like smoke.

    I have just a little more respect for Oprah though after this interview with The Jacksons. She was indeed gentle with Katherine, even bordered on compassionate at times.

    For all the hype though, very little time was spent on Prince, Paris and Blanket. There was hardly any focus on Blanket, but that could be due to Katherine being protective of him. I thought it was a good strategy to have all those cousins present to take some of the focus off PP&B. Oprah spent as much time on the cousins as on Michael's kids. It did bother me though how she made fun of Jermajesty's name.

    BTW, I was wrong in one of my last posts where I said HOURS of waiting in the hospital. It would have been about 1 hour. Which, in all fairness, is not very long for all that was probably going on.

    Lady said:
    "Tight knit, my ass.", Michael Jackson."

    A thought popped into my head from that - another purpose in all this...knit that family together. I certainly see that happening.

    ReplyDelete
  62. this is what Taryll had to say
    Taryll Jackson

    On Monday 8th November 2010, @Taryll said:

    If you question the validity of a professional photo you can ask the photographer for more pictures from that photo shoot. If it is authentic the photographer will turn over different shots. Some with different poses, some even with eyes closed. I questioned the validity of the vocal's on "breaking news" and several other songs of theirs that I've heard and they told me no other takes or tracks exist. They claim my uncle was so happy with the performance he instructed them to delete all the other files. I had the honor to learn and watch my uncle record my entire life and that is NOT how he worked. No outtakes, no other tracks, no backups, no proof. roughly 10 songs they turned in… same story for all of them. I asked for the computer it was created on... they said it broke. I asked for the original hard drive... they said it was destroyed. One dubious excuse after another.

    ReplyDelete
  63. From CeeGee:

    Subject: Not sure where to send messages; opinon on Breaking News
    I wanted to comment on your blog, but wasn't sure where to send it.

    I do NOT think that is Michael's voice on Breaking News. Overall I think it sounds nothing like him. It sounds heavily processed; I played the "acapella" version and saved it. Unfortunately (or so I thought), my recorder broke the song into several small bits. You can hear splices in the bits like a bit was taken from one recording and another bit was stuck in the middle. That could be because the "acapella" version isn't actually stripped from the song, but pieced together. (Nope, just listened to the “acapella” version over the original. Exactly the same.) I have no idea how the vocals were isolated. I have a program to edit music and sounds but have no idea how to use it. I tried. That isn't important, though.

    I don’t think this was ever a complete song. It is too cut up. There are lots of snippets from what sounds like the exhale (think -- she got your number) "ah" overlapping bits of the new song.

    I don't recall the correct terms in singing, but I noticed a lot of shaking on the end of the words like Jackson~~~~. Perhaps vibrato is the term. Actually most of the ending lines have the shaking ending. It doesn’t sound like natural flow and passion, but some sort of added effect.

    There is a part, which I noticed in the complete song, you can hear what sounds like a snort or, how to describe, the breathing was wrong and he snorted and it vibrated. Sorry.

    Lots of overlapping and cutting. I could go on and on. You get the idea. I wish you could hear it for yourself. Whatever the case, it should not have been released, Michael or not. That was for his children to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  64. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-vogel/exclusive-the-inside-stor_b_781364.html

    This is a lie and a Sony attempt to save their sales. Riley said on twitter (posted by someone above) that he couldn't even be sure it was Michael, he was just handed the tracks to complete and said we would have to ask the Cascios as they are the only ones that would know.

    Pathetic Sony!!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Bonnie, there is so much to read, but I just want to stick my two sense in regarding the children/Michael's relationship (s) with children; Observing the MJ3, especially Paris, I think enough said!! MJ was taken advantage of by parasites who used his innocence and trusting heart and soul. Yes, he was a Target. He didn't change, because as the saying goes, 'A Leopard can't change their spots'.. and Michael was not only a Great Humanitarian, but his Love for ALL children, the suffering and the non suffering could not stop because of the selfish acts of others. It is quite evident that Paris and her father were bounded. I can only imagine with a broken heart how she along with Prince and Blanket are crying on the inside. I too, was glad they spoke out. Yes, you are correct, Michael knew they weren't going to be hidden forever, but as a father and his situation it was his responsibility to Protect them, as he did and the children appear to have understood that. They are the only ones who matter, so I think that kind of tells the naysayers to just go away. I thought it was so clever as Paris said he tried to keep them from knowing who he reall was, but it didn't work so well!!! It has made me LOVE Michael more and RESPECT him more. He knew what he was doing and what was best for HIS kids. Thanks Bonnie.. I am looking forward to your blog on the Debbie Rowe impact on the kids.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jenn said, "I thought it was so clever as Paris said he tried to keep them from knowing who he reall was, but it didn't work so well!!! It has made me LOVE Michael more and RESPECT him more. He knew what he was doing and what was best for HIS kids."

    How true. I very much agree...:-)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.