I think there is a lot of truth in what you say Harley.

> How can any grown man share a bed with children(not his own), and say it's okay it's sweet??????
>

i always got the impression that he didn't really think of himself as an adult. he seems to have been a very troubled man.

I am still in shock over this sad news. I was never a massive fan but did like his music. I watched Mark Lesters interview with Phil & Fern this morning and he was still talking of Michael in the present tense. They were clearly close friends and he spoke of Michael with a great deal of respect & admiration. Have just heard on the news that over 100,000 albums and 200,000 singles sales and downloads have been made since the news of Michaels death hit the headlines. 

Umm all those sales, lots of people thinking they'll be worth something in years to come me thinks!

> If he was anybody else, he'd have been in jail years ago

He had a long trial and the jury,having heard all the evidence,found him not guilty.The crime he was accused of is terrible,and it's the only one where to be even accused is tantamount to being found guilty by the general public,no matter how many juries find you not guilty.It must be hideous to be jailed for anything you've not done-but this must be the worst of all.

What?
I may have missed something here, a conclusive trial?
As I understood it he paid of the complainants family to the tune of millions........
I couldn't agree more, that to be accused of any kind of crime wrongly and imprisoned must be horrendous.

He still was grown man (who had been married) who took children into his bed!

Karen

Just wondering who says he didnt do it?  Just because 12 people found him not guilty (they didnt find him innocent) doesnt mean he didnt do it.  Child molestation cases are so hard to prove, so a verdict doesnt mean it didnt happen.  If I was accused of something that I didnt do, I wouldnt pay anyone off!  I would shout my innocence from the roof tops. 

The man did do a lot of things that should have put him in jail for a long time.  He was a disturbed man, and put lives at risk (talking especially about the time he held his child by the leg over a balcony!) 

But, the man is dead now, and we will never know what did or didnt happen.  May he rest in some sort of peace.

>talking especially about the time he held his child by the leg over a balcony!) 

To be fair, he held the child under its arms, not by the leg ... still a stupidly risky thing to do but not as bad as that suggests!

>> He still was grown man (who had been married) who took children into his bed!

too true, he made some amazing music early on in his career but for me will be missed as much as Gary Glitter will be when his time comes....

I checked YouTube, and yes, it was under the arms, and not by the leg.  I make a correction on the way he held the child, but not my other comments. 

how ironic that the people he claims abused him mentally and phisically during his childhood,(mum and dad) are now going to bring up the 3 children he bought ....

I am not a fan or MJ nor am I not a fan. He was a very talented man and every significant stage of my life a MJ song or video was around. When I watched the show on channel4 I felt a lot of very fond memories coming back to me.

RIP MJ hope you are "Left Alone Now"

have to say i thought same if his da was such an awful father why would he want them looking after his own kids,
i know i wouldn't let my mum bring up my son if i went tomorrow ,
i care for my mother myself when her van shuts from november till march but i feel i have to as shes my mum and im the only child even tho i resent the way she brought me up or didnt should i say i would rather my 22 year old looked after my younger son over my mother,

> have to say i thought same if his da was such an awful father why would he want them looking after his own kids

they've not found a will yet have they? so i don't think anyone knows where he'd want them.

this is true i hope the nanny gets them think she seemed caring and from what i read the kids loved her, but you can never tell these days if what your readings right,

> Just because 12 people found him not guilty (they didnt find him innocent) doesnt mean he didnt do it

Of course it doesn't,and a guilty verdict wouldn't necessarily prove he did do it.We all know there are plenty of people in jail who are innocent and plenty of people out of jail who got away with it.My comments were not specifically about him-more about the nature of the charges and how difficult it is to shake off the taint that goes with them for an innocent person.MJ did some things,which to a person who had a "normal" mindset,would have been unthinkable.There's no doubt what he did was wrong,you can't have children in the same bed as you,and think it's o k.But apparently what he did was not criminal in view of what the jury was privy to.I think the parents of those children were out to do anything to get money from him-the kids didn't go there without their sayso.

> they've not found a will yet have they? so i don't think anyone knows where he'd want them.

I heard today that the will is locked away somewhere and the person with the key is out of the city but was expected back today.

I caught a bit of Mark Lester on tv yesterday talking about all this and more (he's godfather to MJs son, and a good friend to MJ who has spent time at Neverland). He said he was more than comfortable letting his children be with MJ. Also watching the original Trevor McDonald docu where MJ talks about all this he is so open - I dont think he'd have said or done what he did, on international tv, if he had anything to hide, to be honest.

I've thought about it a lot and unless any other "evidence" that is genuine turns up, I do think he was innocent.

JMO though!

> Of course it doesn't,and a guilty verdict wouldn't necessarily prove he did do it.We all know there are plenty of people in jail who are innocent and plenty of people out of jail who got away with it.

I know all you say is correct and you are being objective about all of it.
But my problem is paedophiles.
They are so damned arrogant, that NOTHING is amiss and they only do what children are happy doing.......ugh I hate them.
And other adults always hear the adults before hearing the children..............
I do speak from limited experience.
Karen

RIP Michael Jackson, weird weird man that you were.  I hope the children grow up well and see the world in a different light to the rest of their family - that they have as normal a life as possible.

Totally agree with the comment that MJ was asexual - that's my thoughts exactly.  Wouldn't be surprised if the autopsy shows he was a eunuch.  He was so badly damaged as a child that he's never grown up. And I don't believe he was a paedophile either and when you know what to look for it is alarmingly easy to see.  Just a very messed up and damaged man who didn't have the support he desperately needed as a youngster.

The Mark Lester interview was very moving yesterday. I wasn't a fan of Michael's music but I appreciated his incredible talent. The more I hear the more I think he was innocent of child abuse......he was naive and I think maybe people used this weakness to claim against him. I had him down as guilty for years, now I'm not so sure.
If you get a chance to watch the interview - perhaps it's available on youtube or something - it's worth it and was a kind and caring insight into his life from somebody who really did seem to know him.

> But my problem is paedophiles

I detest paedophiles and their arrogance too.

Just watched the interview with Mark Lester and it was good to get a totally different prospective to that shown in the newspapers from an obviously close friend.  Anyone else wanting to watch it can find it here http://www.itv.com/lifestyle/thismorning/

Thanks that was interesting - a very sensitive interview.  The one thing that came out to my mind was that Mark L could not discuss the personal things with MJ - like the surgery - so even he as a close friend stepped very carefully around him.  It is a sad fact that people with wealth find it difficult to be told the truth by close friends and family - they only get told what people think he should hear.

that Mark L could not discuss the personal things with MJ - like the surgery - so even he as a close friend stepped very carefully around him.

I think surgery was the only thing he said he didn't discuss with MJ and I think we would probably all struggle telling close friends who continued to have plastic surgery that they weren't improving their looks, in fact far from it.  The surgeons themselves were at fault but then as shown by the dentist situation which was discussed, sadly there are always professionals who are prepared to put income before principle. :-(

they only get told what people think he should hear

and many famous/wealthy people seem to find no shortage of hangers on who will do exactly that.

Totally agree with the comment that MJ was asexual - that's my thoughts exactly.  Wouldn't be surprised if the autopsy shows he was a eunuch

A girl after my own heart. :-)

I truly believe he was Asexual, he appears to have been so abhorant to s*x that he could not even muster the capacity to donate to the making of his own children, you have to ask why he could not even do that! The most dear and important thing to him was to have his own children, yet he didn't actually contribute.

IMO if he were gay regardless of his religion, worry of coming out, problems from his father finding out etc he was so wealthy he could have had r*nt boys in his home every night and no-one would have been any the wiser, he appears to have done nothing, there have never to my knowledge been any ex-s*xual partners come forward, just as if he truly were a paedophile he could also have bought in whatever he wished, whenever he wished it, we know that happens too. :-(

I believe he did really love children he could interact with them perhaps because he did not feel normal around other people, due to his aversions towards s*x, with them he could just be himself. IMO he treated children very like some treat a chihuahua, dress them up take them about with them, kiss and cuddle, hug and love them, he still wished to love and be loved, but as with some toy dog owners although they are loved to death there is no s*xual feelings towards them, I feel it is very possibly and probable the same in this case.

He wasn't a 'normal' man, look at LaToya she wanted to do BB to mix with 'normal' :-D people, she'd never done it in all her years, many of the Jackson are completely unsocialised with the outside world, they have their staff and loyal friends, but they don't know how to act beyond that, it is not surprising that MJ prefered to remain in a world of fantasy and be with children who would not judge him.

The parents who allowed their children to be his chihuahua only did so because he was rich, no parent otherwise would allow a man to become their childs best friend and do sleep overs, it's obvious money always was the incentive here. If he had no money left do you think those children would ever have been within 100 miles of his home.

I'll remember him for his music.

I feel it is tragic that if he truly was innocent of any s*exual feelings towards his child friends that for half the world to believe him to be a paedophile must have broken his heart in two as it would any of us, it ruined him, innocent or guilty, that kind of stigma never goes away. I'm glad that he had such loyal friends and fans to take away that terrible burden.

Carrington, thanks for that, and very well put. :-)

Here here Carrington!  That's what I've been trying to say for years.

> there have never to my knowledge been any ex-s*xual partners come forward

apparently Lisa Marie Presley gave an interview to someone who was writing an artical in yesterdays Daily Mail. She slept with Jacko and said "he was red hot in bed" and that he was more than capable in that area of their relationship

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1196395/Lisa-Marie-Presley-said-passionate-lover-So-WAS-truth-Jacksons-sexuality.html

So Ive found one for you Carrington lol :)

I never believed that for one moment. :-D It was quoted throughout their very quick marriage, the same way Brooke Shields gave indication of a sexual relationship until she stopped seeing  him, the same way that the marriage to his surrogate mother also indicated that the children were acheived through natural causes, once the 'relationships' were over the truth came out.

I dare say if Lisa Marie were asked the same today she would admit there had been no sex too. :-)

I must admit I didnt believe it either about any of his wives Carrington, who knows what the truth is???

I guess we will never know what actually went on in his life as out of the only 2 people who know the real truth,1 is dead and the other you have to die to meet .

Do you know I could never quite get my head around how Debbie Rowe, could just let her children go like that and that she was quoted as saying that she would not wish custody of those children now that Michael has gone as she would not be a good mother, (without even trying :-( ) and had accepted that she may never see them again, to me I just couldn't understand that.

If the newspaper reports today are to be believed it appears that the 2 children she gave birth to are not only not Michaels biologically (as we knew) but also not hers either! She was just the vessel who carried the fertilized eggs, now I understand her lack of maternal instinct towards them now that Michael is gone.

I guess privately those children will learn who their actual biological parents were, (some real rumours going around) but maybe not until they are 18, but boy what a mix up for those children.

Must admit though the photos in some newspapers of thwm with Michael in normal everyday environments are beautiful to look at, they are just normal loving family photos, I have no doubt those children were loved very much and had a very normal upbringing (as much as they could) away from the camera's.

If the newspaper reports today are to be believed it appears that the 2 children she gave birth to are not only not Michaels biologically (as we knew) but also not hers either!  She was just the vessel who carried the fertilized eggs, now I understand her lack of maternal instinct towards them now that Michael is gone.

it would make more sense i suppose as in statements Debbies said in the past she  said they were not her children but that she had them for Michael their his children they dont belong to her, i found that strange when i first read that years ago as i thought well yes their hers as she still their mother , now im thinking ,maybe She was merely the surrogate, paid well for her services. as stated in the papers today,

Very well written.Carrington

> as in statements Debbies said in the past she  said they were not her children

Really ?

she has always in the past said she had the children for jackson and that they were his children not hers thats what she said when she gave up her parental rights , she wanted Jackson to be a father im not saying that their are not really hers only that it would have made more sense as to why she found it so easy to distatch  herself from them,

Totally agree Carrington and if they are not her children then it is best she admits it now.  If, as now seems likely, their grandmother gains custody, I hope they put lots of support in for them, and keep Joe Jackson as far away from them as possible.  It would appear that Katherine lives in LA and Joe lives  in Las Vegas, I hope it stays that way.  I could not believe it  when I saw him being interviewed on CNN and he plugged his new record company when he was being asked how everyone was coping. 

here we go the battle for the poor kids shall begin, i feel sad for them what a shocking nightmare they have been thrown into ,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1197053/Debbie-Rowe-insists-IS-biological-mother-Michael-Jacksons-oldest-children.html

can anyone make sense of what she said here These are his children,' she testified in court. 'I had the children for him. They wouldn't be on this planet if it wasn't for my love for him.
'I did it for him to become a father, not for me to become a mother. You earn the title "parent". I have done absolutely nothing to earn that title.'


oh so now she decides she want to be a mother i just dont understand this women and i dont belive she had them because she loved Jackson

watch his final performance here,

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2514052/Watch-video-of-Michael-Jacksons-final-show-here.html

Everyone's saying how fit he looks on there, to me he still doesn't look that fit and would of worried how he would of been able to go through the whole routine at the tours, especially 50 of them.  His weight will have caused many factors on his organs.

i to think that 50 dates was a Ridiculous amount of dates  really ,
I see him in his history tour in 1997 , he was a very thin man on stage then I remember being shocked at how small he's frame seemed and we were quite close to he front of the stage, as when you see him in the paper in pictures he looks taller and not so thin , but in reality he did look like a very small built man

I'm with perrodeagua, I think he looks completely outclassed by the backing dancers there, no punch to it at all. The whole point of Michael Jackson was always that he could match the professional dancers.

All very sad, such a mess.

M.

> Everyone's saying how fit he looks on there, to me he still doesn't look that

I completely agree, have you noticed how tiny his waist is?, I don't think it's a good performance (albeit the piece is quite short) & I don't think he looks like he used to nor dances like he use to - after all this is what made MJ the star he was, he's unique dance moves.

I find the handling of the whole situation quite distasteful now, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon & trying to make money, sadly his family namely his dad are included in this.  I wish for his children's sake they would arrange the funeral, let MJ rest in piece & allow the children grieve & try to get back to normal, although what is normal for those children I don't know.  Such a shame that even now in death MJ & his family continue to be controversial. :(

I heard on the TV he was only actually performing for 13 mins in TOTAL,the rest was padded out with dancers and effects.

He has never been a well built man though,then the pressure of performing,the scandals and illness
it will take it out of anyone.

I think the recent interview with the body guard sums it up. A man from a child robbed completely of his live.  To me the body guard has been the most genuine of them all. 

Looks like the docs have a lot to answer for soon.

watch his final performance here,


He sounded great and was dancing brilliantly. The magic was still there.

I think the light or perhaps just the picture on this particular video does his face no good making it look skeletal, but how many stars today are near anorexic looking and still do a show, he needed to be nimble to do those hectic dance routines, he's always been slim, just worn padded jackets. I admit 8 stone is a terrible weight for a man, terrible, he could never have managed 50 dates even in tip top health, I hope his plan was to pull out half way through and admit it was too much.

Looking at that video though, he would have been phenominal on the dates he would have done. :-(

It wasn't his face it was his legs, they looked as though they'd break any second.  Still agree with what someone else up that actually his backing dancers out performed him on this video, but saying that at least he was singing at the same time, which you don't get with many stars of today.

Totally agree and it was only a rehersal too so he would not be going at it full steam ahead. That said it was not him frame or related illness that " appears" to have killed him at this stange . Although it has to be confirmed I think an overdose is on the cards.

They doctors need a kick up the backend.

Did anyway one see the interview with the body guard. The full one was on Sky last night. Doctors were charging people to come in and see MJ in his room.. 

MJ was a cash cow for so many.

Don't forget he was probably drugged up and he is or was a 50 year old man.

You could see it in his hands how old he was - I thought they looked quite aged.