Book: Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days / Review @pg8

[AliCat]

How would Michael have known how to authorize a credit card? I'll bet he never had to do that ever in his life, until he lost almost everyone around him who previously supported him and did those types of tasks for him? He never had to deal with anything like pre-authorizing a card before it's use, ever. I found that totally believable and it doesn't make Michael look bad at all in my eyes. It just shows that his life experiences are totally different than ours.

And yes, he did like to go shopping at times. That's all he's ever known, and he was always lead to believe (by people like Raymone) that deals were coming through, etc.

Michael was totally different. His behavior/reactions were a product of how his life has always been. And he was thrust into a whole different world after the trial, and people expect him to have the coping skills of someone "experienced" like us average people??? The bodyguards even specifically address this issue in this book and do not blame Michael.

I don't get it. I don't need Michael to be perfect or expect him to fit the description of "normal". But he was trying to be normal. That's all he wanted, but the world around him would never let him. So what if he did things different than us? Why wouldn't he? And that shouldn't make him look bad.

Uh he could have just read the little strip with the Instructions on the card if he had never used a Credit Card before December of 2007. Why didn't the employee who was swiping the card and it came up about it had not been authorized yet, point that out to the customer and allow said customer to do so.

Your salutation is noted!

 

[twinklEE]

Michael has a mind of his own did as he pleased as demonstrated over and over again. I dont think there was a time when he was a helpless puppy following orders without a will of his own. So he worked with Sony, so what I work every day in my life for money as do 99,99% of ppl in the world.

 

[GreenEyes]

Uh he could have just read the little strip with the Instructions on the card if he had never used a Credit Card before December of 2007. Why didn't the employee who was swiping the card and it came up about it had not been authorized yet, point that out to the customer and allow said customer to do so.

Your salutation is noted!

We will never be on the same page on this, so I'm not even going to try.

 

[AliCat]

Uh...nope!​

 

[morinen]

Desperation in my book would be not spending any money on luxury items, allocating all of the money to debt payment and accepting any and all money bringing projects brought to him.

In my book, that would be called common sense. But unfortunately, Michael was used to a certain life style and by the end of his life that habit (which also probably provided a sense of security to him) often overshadowed common sense.

Some people - not talking about you - like to portray Michael as a powerless puppet at times that had no choice, I kinda disagree with that. Saying no to a Vegas show but saying yes to Thriller 25 is a choice in my opinion. Similarly taking the money out to buy a house rather than paying the debt is also a choice.

I have the impression he pretended like he still had a choice when he really didn't have one anymore - when he carried on by miracle and with help of powerful "friends" (who only got him deeper in debt). He didn't agree to Vegas for the same reason he didn't agree to O2 in the beginning - because he knew he couldn't perform at such grueling schedule. (Plus, I think, he might have considered Vegas shows below his level.) Thriller 25 lacked that negative aspect, so he accepted it. He had to compromise somewhere. At some point - in 2009 - he had to face the reality of no choice, and that's how he got signed up to 50 shows that killed him. So was he a puppet? No. He did pick and choose until he couldn't anymore. But his choice was also to often pretend that his financial problems didn't exist and let his handlers "figure it out" when in fact the situation was very dire and required his involvement. That made him controllable by people who either didn't have his interests at heart or simply didn't know what the hell they were doing. It just wasn't black or white, and it definitely wasn't simple.

I understand that business is business, and Thriller 25 might have been a totally sound business decision, as was the Estate's deal with Sony, and the Xscape album, and maybe even the hologram. It all brings money. But there is also the ethical aspect of it: the artist's feelings and the question whether they should be taken into account when the artist isn't here no more. Everyone will answer for themselves, which is fine. What is unacceptable, imo, is distorting the artist's position to try to fit it to one's agenda - like claiming that because he released Thriller 25, he didn't have an issue with Sony anymore. Regardless of whether we chose to buy Sony products or not and whether we have an issue with them or not, I think we should at least give Michael the honor of respecting his position and not trying to abuse it.

 

[Warszawa320]

What privacy? Michael lost his privacy the day he died. First in the line selling Michael's privacy was family members(sold interviews to various UK tabloids, books, film), then followed by some friends and associates.
I think it is a little too late to protect his privacy considering what has said and done since 6/2009. The only thing to me is, is it worthy of my purchase and how true it stays to Michael. We ain't going to get 1 single book that portrays Michael like saint Michael, because he is not one, and secondly noone can live their life and be flawless, not even Michael.

Btw, Raymone Bain's book is out soon, so more stuff for us to argue about

Thank you so much for this post. I feel exactly the same...

 

[Warszawa320]

Sorry, I meant that in Jackson's mind it was an intervention as they testified in AEG trial how many times they had to save Michael from overdose or whatever. Randy's gate crashing was intervention during the AEG trial but in real it was he wanted money from Michael.

The description of "family" gathering outside of the gate all dressed in the black and sun glasses made me think of bunch of vultures came to have a look if there is a body to pickh34r:

Again thank you so much for another great post...

 

[sfosteredi]

As I sit here eating popcorn with spray butter and hot sauce (it’s good!) I started thinking about how diverse MJ’s fandom is. We are probably one of the most diverse groups of people in the world. We represent all nations, all races, cultures, and religions. We come from all social and economic groups, all educational levels and represent many fields. Some of us speak English as a first (maybe only) language while many of us read books and read and write on the forum in a language other than our first. Some of us are living though war and conflict in our countries and others have experienced it in the past. Some of us have dealt with discrimination and unfair treatment based on our color, our sexual preference, our religion, or just how we look. Some of us are dealing with illness or disabilities and some of us are dealing with loss on a very personal level. Some of us are still teenagers while others of us have grandchildren and are retired. All of these aspects about us affect our perspective or the way we see things.
So when we each read the same accounts of MJ’s experiences, the things his BGs did or said, and the things MJ did or did not do, they are going to be shaded by who we are and what our life experiences have been. I don’t think it means that we don’t all love him and want his legacy to be the greatest of any entertainer and humanitarian on earth, we just can’t all see or feel the same things because we are not all the same. I think the BG’s were trying to find a balance. Something for everyone.
I had no problem with accounts of MJ’s lady friends because I know that in certain cultural groups it’s important to see that side of him. To other cultural groups, it may seem a little inappropriate. Here again, I think it was part of the balance.
There were many times I felt happy or sad while reading, but the last page was the saddest to me. I couldn’t believe that I had just read an accounting of almost 2 years of his life and that there were no stories about MJ having old friends come by to visit or for dinner, about MJ and the kids going to other peoples house for a cook-out or pool party, that he and the children were never offered a permanent place to live by all of his super rich friends (many of whom he helped to make rich). I’m talking about wanting nothing in return, no deals , no projects, just friendship.
I remember Michael’s Memorial like it was yesterday. Many people stood up and told stores about things that happened in the 60’s,70’s, 80’s, 90’s, but no stories about things they did after 2003. How did I miss that?
So to me the most significant part of the Remember the Time book is how MJ and his children were abandoned by his so called friends. That should have never happened. I hope all his old “friends” read the book so they’ll know that we know.

 

[Lisha]

As I sit here eating popcorn with spray butter and hot sauce (it’s good!) .

:lol:

That was a good post, sfosteredi, both fair and mature.

 

[AliCat]

What privacy? Michael lost his privacy the day he died. First in the line selling Michael's privacy was family members(sold interviews to various UK tabloids, books, film), then followed by some friends and associates.
I think it is a little too late to protect his privacy considering what has said and done since 6/2009. The only thing to me is, is it worthy of my purchase and how true it stays to Michael. We ain't going to get 1 single book that portrays Michael like saint Michael, because he is not one, and secondly noone can live their life and be flawless, not even Michael.

Btw, Raymone Bain's book is out soon, so more stuff for us to argue about

Here are some recent comments that Raymone Bain made about Michael Jackson that I agree with.

Raymone Bain, Michael Jackson's manager and spokesperson from 2001-2009.

"Michael Jackson never hung out. Michael Jackson never had a large entourage like that. Michael Jackson never played. I remember in the seven years that I worked for him I suggested we go to a movie and he looked at me as if I were crazy. We went bowling one time when he took the kids. Michael Jackson was about business. He always wanted to be the best. He wanted to be the most successful. He wanted to break the records. He wanted to leave a legacy."

Jackson was surrounded by a team who supported him, but, as Bain asserts, he also encouraged them to tell him when he was wrong. "There is a misconception. Michael Jackson didn't like 'yes-men'. When we would sit at the table with him he would get angry when we did not tell him what we really thought, he really would."

http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/31/michael-jacksons-manager-bieber-is-bored/

I think this will be a good read. This sounds more plausible to me!

 

[Bubs]

"I remember in the seven years that I worked for him I suggested we go to a movie and he looked at me as if I were crazy."

I don't know what to think about that? We know for sure, Michael loved to go to movies, and we have heard from many people that they went to movies with him. Maybe with Bain, he was all business and didn't want to spend private time with her, but her telling MJ was all business, is not simply true. It is something that Bain felt and it is her opinion, but don't take it as it is absolute truth. Same goes with many other authors

Btw, didn't Branca re-sign because he thought MJ was surrounded by shady people?
Maybe Bain wasn't around that time?

 

[AliCat]

It's hard to say, Bubs, because even Freddie Mercury talked about how Michael spent a lot of time at home and Michael said he could get anything he needed at home, so why go out.

In the Martin Bashir documentary we watch Martin and Michael watching a movie. So Michael was right in that perspective about having everything at home. And even Michael has talked about that's why he loved "Neverland," because of the privacy and being able to do things at his home.

I think it is about gleaning from different people's perspective of Michael which helps us see him better. Raymone Bain sounds like she is trying to be fair and balanced in her view!

 

[GreenEyes]

Raymone Bain sued Michael for $44 MILLION dollars two months before he died, even though she was more than compensated for her services. She sounds like a crook to me. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/05/rs-jackson7.html

Luckily, her claim against his estate was shot down.

 

[Bubs]

Yes, but even so, I don't think Michael stayed behind the four walls, he would have gone mad.
I know he went to movies in disguise with friends, he went to bowling with his kids, he went to see Cirque shows many times, he went to disneyland,he had some of those famous shopping trips which he would not have done if he was all business.

Think about it, if Michael had everything at home, and wanted his privacy, why did he go to those shopping trips when he knew he'll get mopped or appeared other public places? If you think about it, you'll know the answer.

 

[GreenEyes]

For those who have read the book:

Did it leave you with a lot of questions in your mind about Peter Lopez and why he would kill himself shortly after Michael died?

It did me.

 

[Petrarose]

I have the impression he pretended like he still had a choice when he really didn't have one anymore - when he carried on by miracle and with help of powerful "friends" (who only got him deeper in debt). ...... At some point - in 2009 - he had to face the reality of no choice, and that's how he got signed up to 50 shows that killed him.

^^Everyone has a choice. The thing is which choice do you take. He had a choice of a number of things: album, tour, or whatever other business deals he was working on, rejected, or was offered. He CHOSE no tour. It was a choice he made. He could have said YES to touring. Therefore, he always had a choice. Whether one deal would be as financially rewarding than the other is another thing and should not be mixed up with the theory of 'no choice'. All humans have a choice, unless someone physically contain them. Even if someone says if you move I will kill you, the person still has the choice to move. I hear these comments as though Michael is caught like a dear in the headlights and has no choice but to stand and not move. It is as though Michel could do only 1 thing all the time, and that one thing was driven by someone telling him he had to do it. Now after the thread had evolved from this type of thinking from a few days ago, with one word you had to bring it back.

I guess people are buying all the books out there about michael, and now feel they have all the inside information of his thoughts, motivations, feelings, lack of choice, basically every little thing about Michael from his perspective.

Later in your post you flip flop. You say he has no choice but he is not a puppet. How could that be. Any person who is locked into a situation where there is no choice at all is really a puppet. However, once I see you bring in the hologram issue and buying of Sony products I see you have your own agenda going on, so now I understand the whole motivation of your post.

Additionally, 50 shows did not kill Michael Jackson. He was killed by Muarry's several deviations, so to link lack of choice to 50 shows to death is a bit strong.

 

[Ramona122003]

^^Everyone has a choice. The thing is which choice do you take. He had a choice of a number of things: album, tour, or whatever other business deals he was working on, rejected, or was offered. He CHOSE no tour. It was a choice he made. He could have said YES to touring. Therefore, he always had a choice. Whether one deal would be as financially rewarding than the other is another thing and should not be mixed up with the theory of 'no choice'. All humans have a choice, unless someone physically contain them. Even if someone says if you move I will kill you, the person still has the choice to move. I hear these comments as though Michael is caught like a dear in the headlights and has no choice but to stand and not move. It is as though Michel could do only 1 thing all the time, and that one thing was driven by someone telling him he had to do it. Now after the thread had evolved from this type of thinking from a few days ago, with one word you had to bring it back.

I guess people are buying all the books out there about michael, and now feel they have all the inside information of his thoughts, motivations, feelings, lack of choice, basically every little thing about Michael from his perspective.

Later in your post you flip flop. You say he has no choice but he is not a puppet. How could that be. Any person who is locked into a situation where there is no choice at all is really a puppet. However, once I see you bring in the hologram issue and buying of Sony products I see you have your own agenda going on, so now I understand the whole motivation of your post.

Additionally, 50 shows did not kill Michael Jackson. He was killed by Muarry's several deviations, so to link lack of choice to 50 shows to death is a bit strong.

I have this problem too. Too many fans want to coddle Michael and turn him into a kid who needs protection or lacked common sense.

Michael always had choices. Even if he was 'force' to tour, it was his decision for how many shows he did and how big the production was. It was also his choice to work with Sony, he could have easily did projects for other companies or even did those Vegas shows. We can't say he had no choice, then turn around and say as he wasn't puppet. A person with no choice either is a puppet or a kid.

On the subject of the actual book, I think everyone needs to be careful with how they view the bodyguard accounts. Remember, you are reading these accounts through the filter of bias (like any person). It was the same with Frank's book when he said some pretty odd stuff because he either did not have the full story or he allowed his bias about people to jade his view-point.

 

[Ramona122003]

double post.

 

[Ramona122003]

double post.

 

[ivy]

I have the impression he pretended like he still had a choice when he really didn't have one anymore - when he carried on by miracle and with help of powerful "friends" (who only got him deeper in debt). He didn't agree to Vegas for the same reason he didn't agree to O2 in the beginning - because he knew he couldn't perform at such grueling schedule. (Plus, I think, he might have considered Vegas shows below his level.) Thriller 25 lacked that negative aspect, so he accepted it. He had to compromise somewhere. At some point - in 2009 - he had to face the reality of no choice, and that's how he got signed up to 50 shows that killed him. So was he a puppet? No. He did pick and choose until he couldn't anymore. But his choice was also to often pretend that his financial problems didn't exist and let his handlers "figure it out" when in fact the situation was very dire and required his involvement. That made him controllable by people who either didn't have his interests at heart or simply didn't know what the hell they were doing. It just wasn't black or white, and it definitely wasn't simple.

I understand that business is business, and Thriller 25 might have been a totally sound business decision, as was the Estate's deal with Sony, and the Xscape album, and maybe even the hologram. It all brings money. But there is also the ethical aspect of it: the artist's feelings and the question whether they should be taken into account when the artist isn't here no more. Everyone will answer for themselves, which is fine. What is unacceptable, imo, is distorting the artist's position to try to fit it to one's agenda - like claiming that because he released Thriller 25, he didn't have an issue with Sony anymore. Regardless of whether we chose to buy Sony products or not and whether we have an issue with them or not, I think we should at least give Michael the honor of respecting his position and not trying to abuse it.

I agree with majority of what you say. As we all know there are two extreme opinions in this regard - one that everything was fine and dandy with Sony and two Michael would have never ever worked with Sony. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle - that he didn't love Sony but he also worked with them.

What seems like contradiction can be explained by being a businessman and a professional. I agree with your position that Thriller 25 deal was an easy and quick deal compared to performing - hence being a businessman and taking a good deal and I believe Michael was a professional who can put aside his feelings in a job setting. Anyone that has worked has probably experienced a boss, a coworker, a workplace etc that they didn't like or get along with but yet still showed up and did their job as a professional.

I guess what I don't agree is still the "no choice" part. I still see choice. Choosing AEG deal over several possible deals. Choosing take money from Thriller 25 rather than paying the debt. Increasing production budget hence decreasing his profits- when allegedly he was desperate for money and had no choice. BG's book makes it sound like MJ's focus was to buy a $50 Million house, not his debts. Even in the Murray audio file Michael talked about taking the money from the tour and opening a children's hospital - not using the money to pay his debts. and I know some fans don't like to hear this but selling his assets and even the catalog was a choice. Overall I'll agree that it wasn't black or white and it wasn't simple.

I think this will be a good read. This sounds more plausible to me!

I think it is about gleaning from different people's perspective of Michael which helps us see him better. Raymone Bain sounds like she is trying to be fair and balanced in her view!

Raymone Bain sued Michael for $44 MILLION dollars two months before he died, even though she was more than compensated for her services. She sounds like a crook to me.

Well Bodyguards book didn't portray Bain good in my opinion such as using MJ's money to rent herself an apartment, how MJ didn't know Bain was working from her home and so on. Yes Bain sued MJ and later his Estate for $44 million and we know that she didn't pay Michael's taxes for 3 years. If anything I would say that she wasn't a competent manager.

Also what makes people say her book is being released soon? It was supposed to be released last year but then cancelled. Amazon changed the release date to 2020.

I hear these comments as though Michael is caught like a dear in the headlights and has no choice but to stand and not move. Later in your post you flip flop. You say he has no choice but he is not a puppet. How could that be. Any person who is locked into a situation where there is no choice at all is really a puppet.

The other day I was reading some comments on twitter and it was those comments that made it sound like Michael was a puppet and then the explanation of Sony deal as due to desperation brought it back. If you read the book, you'll see bodyguards place Las Vegas deal with Steve Wynn to close time proximity with the Thriller 25 deal. I agree with Morinen that the reason Michael probably passed on the Wynn deal was he thought performing 5 nights a week was too much for him and he might have thought it was below him. Similarly if you look to Sony deal he didn't like Sony and he didn't like touching his songs, yet he went with that deal. That's a choice in my book.

(Ps: while bodyguards claim MJ had contractual obligations both Bain and Sony and later on bodyguards -unknowingly - confirm Thriller 25 was a new deal)

 

[Petrarose]

Yeah that Winn deal, I don't know why he said no to it, but to me that is something you do in between major projects. Not after you have been out of grand touring and performances for years. You want to come back with something super phenomenal, if you are a Michael Jackson. I know some tv/movie stars would return to Vegas now and then, because they miss the 1 to 1 immediate feedback from the live audience. However, I don't see that in Michael's case.

I guess since the book has that Sony reference, I will see in the future the anti-Sony commentators citing this information as proof why any Estate/Sony products, like albums should be boycotted because Michael would not work with Sony again.

 

[Warszawa320]

In my book, that would be called common sense. But unfortunately, Michael was used to a certain life style and by the end of his life that habit (which also probably provided a sense of security to him) often overshadowed common sense.



I have the impression he pretended like he still had a choice when he really didn't have one anymore - when he carried on by miracle and with help of powerful "friends" (who only got him deeper in debt). He didn't agree to Vegas for the same reason he didn't agree to O2 in the beginning - because he knew he couldn't perform at such grueling schedule. (Plus, I think, he might have considered Vegas shows below his level.) Thriller 25 lacked that negative aspect, so he accepted it. He had to compromise somewhere. At some point - in 2009 - he had to face the reality of no choice, and that's how he got signed up to 50 shows that killed him. So was he a puppet? No. He did pick and choose until he couldn't anymore. But his choice was also to often pretend that his financial problems didn't exist and let his handlers "figure it out" when in fact the situation was very dire and required his involvement. That made him controllable by people who either didn't have his interests at heart or simply didn't know what the hell they were doing. It just wasn't black or white, and it definitely wasn't simple.

I understand that business is business, and Thriller 25 might have been a totally sound business decision, as was the Estate's deal with Sony, and the Xscape album, and maybe even the hologram. It all brings money. But there is also the ethical aspect of it: the artist's feelings and the question whether they should be taken into account when the artist isn't here no more. Everyone will answer for themselves, which is fine. What is unacceptable, imo, is distorting the artist's position to try to fit it to one's agenda - like claiming that because he released Thriller 25, he didn't have an issue with Sony anymore. Regardless of whether we chose to buy Sony products or not and whether we have an issue with them or not, I think we should at least give Michael the honor of respecting his position and not trying to abuse it.

First of all 50 shows did not kill Michael because he had not performed even one show. He would be rehearsing the same amount of time for one show as for 50. And he would use the same amount of energy. So please stop with this illogical argument. And as long as he would not have to deal with Motolla IMO he would always choose any entertainment company which would give him the best deal. There is no way he would not sign the new contract with Sony if he would get what he wanted. He always wanted the best recording deal but he also wanted to be independent as much as possible. And what's most important that at that time his priority was to establish himself as movies maker more than anything else. In the end AEG gave him the best opportunity ever in this area but first he had to make some money by performing on stage again.

 

[HIStory]

I guess since the book has that Sony reference, I will see in the future the anti-Sony commentators citing this information as proof why any Estate/Sony products, like albums should be boycotted because Michael would not work with Sony again.

The boycott is so stupid, because whatever Michael felt about Sony he never called for a boycott of his own music! He always wanted his music do well. The boycotters only punish Michael, no one else.

I don't think he loved Sony, but notice how the whole broken headphones story in the book is based on the BGs assumption. They found the headphone broken and they concluded Michael broke it deliberately because he hated Sony so much. That's a jump to conclusions. In reality we do not know why those headphones were broken and what it meant, if it meant something at all.

Maybe Michael broke it because he didn't like Sony, but then in the house search in 2003 he had a Sony computer next to his bed. And that was at the hight of his beef with Sony/Mottola. So I'm not sure if the BGs just don't want to see more into this thing than what it is.

No, I'm not saying Michael was totally OK with Sony, but emotions are one thing and business is another and Michael was a professional. Those fans who call for the boycott of Sony should remember that no matter what Michael felt about them he was still contracted to them and it would have been hard for him to get a full divorce - and that is true to the Estate as well. So for the Estate it was a common sense decision to stay with Sony. As it was for Michael. Regardless of feelings.

 

[MIST]

I suppose it´s not enough to write about what they saw and heard, they have to assume things to.
It´s not only in the bodyguards book.

Michael might have broken the earphone because he was frustrated about the whole situation.
He could have been angry with the Arvizos, fake friends,Tom Sneddon...and much more

Maybe he was late when he was going to work with Thriller 25 because he didn´t work with Sony, he didn´t really want to change the Thriller album but he did it for money.
Or he was late because he had prostate problems and spent a long time on the toilet..and such problems don´t make you feel good.

There is a video on youtube where Michael is sitting in a car pouring perfume on him saying hello down there..the first thought for me he has prostate problems but in the comments I could read others just thought he was funny.We saw the same video but had different opinions about it.
I didn´t make a comment about it was just a thought

I have a background working many years in health care I suppose that´s why I see it in a different way.

People who write books about Michael -even if they were there with him-can assume things too depending on their experiences with life .

 

[Ramona122003]

I suppose it´s not enough to write about what they saw and heard, they have to assume things to.
It´s not only in the bodyguards book.

Michael might have broken the earphone because he was frustrated about the whole situation.
He could have been angry with the Arvizos, fake friends,Tom Sneddon...and much more

Maybe he was late when he was going to work with Thriller 25 because he didn´t work with Sony, he didn´t really want to change the Thriller album but he did it for money.
Or he was late because he had prostate problems and spent a long time on the toilet..and such problems don´t make you feel good.

There is a video on youtube where Michael is sitting in a car pouring perfume on him saying hello down there..the first thought for me he has prostate problems but in the comments I could read others just thought he was funny.We saw the same video but had different opinions about it.
I didn´t make a comment about it was just a thought

I have a background working many years in health care I suppose that´s why I see it in a different way.

People who write books about Michael -even if they were there with him-can assume things too depending on their experiences with life .

Very true. Which is why I say that fans should be careful when considering the bodyguards' words as the complete truth. I am not saying they are lying, but they may not know the entire truth of a situation and are making assumption based on the public record. Like the Sony headphones or why Michael seemed less then thriller about Thriller 25 since Michael's fall-out with Sony is well-known it is easy to conclude that Michael didn't like (or downright hate) Sony, even if that may not be the whole picture.

 

[HIStory]

Very true. Which is why I say that fans should be careful when considering the bodyguards' words as the complete truth. I am not saying they are lying, but they may not know the entire truth of a situation and are making assumption based on the public record. Like the Sony headphones or why Michael seemed less then thriller about Thriller 25 since Michael's fall-out with Sony is well-known it is easy to conclude that Michael didn't like (or downright hate) Sony, even if that may not be the whole picture.

Yes. Just because a book generally feels positive we still should not forget that it's subjective and the stories in it are filtered through someone's perspective who may generally be sympathetic to Michael, but still may not be free of certain biases and self-serving agendas sometimes. And sometimes it's not even intentional twisting of the truth, just plain old subjectivity which we all have. Usually there aren't 100% unbiased and truthful books. We shouldn't forget that.

 

[Warszawa320]

Very true. Which is why I say that fans should be careful when considering the bodyguards' words as the complete truth. I am not saying they are lying, but they may not know the entire truth of a situation and are making assumption based on the public record. Like the Sony headphones or why Michael seemed less then thriller about Thriller 25 since Michael's fall-out with Sony is well-known it is easy to conclude that Michael didn't like (or downright hate) Sony, even if that may not be the whole picture.

But bodyguards had always said that the book is just their story and how the things were around them and how they felt about the events. All the narrative is about their perspectives about the issues. Like Konrad Murray's issue for example. They don't say that Murray is not guilty but it seems they don't blame Murray as much as "all the vultures" who forced Michael to rehearse every day for 50 shows. They just say Murray's services would not be necessary if Michael would not sign for those 50 shows. They are absolutely right about this but they forget that practicing for 50 shows is no different than practicing for one show. And it was Michael's choice to do it and nobody else.
Then in their opinion all the brothers (except Randy) and Janet came at midnight to his house to just check on him when we all know ( from Janet's interviews and Leonard Rowe book) that the main goal was to recruit him for the Jackson5 reunion tour with Janet as opening act. Michael purposely damaging things when frustrated is nothing knew and it's only their opinion that he broke Sony headphones because he hated Sony. Did he hate cell phones when he damaged Bill's phone? No, he was angry about the people he spoke with on the phone. Did he hate the specific brand of security camera at the hotel's pool area when he destroyed it? No, he just got crazy with the idea that it could videotape his children in the pool. And he even didn't care about bodyguards professionalism when they told him that the camera was disconnected. Again the bodyguards always said that the book is about their time with Michael and how they feel about the events.

 

[MIST]

They don't say that Murray is not guilty but it seems they don't blame Murray as much as "all the vultures" who forced Michael to rehearse every day for 50 shows.

They got it wrong there.
Michael didn´t rehearse every day.
If they were protecting Michael his final days they should at least know that..
They introduced Murray for Michael so of course they don´t want to blame Murray that much.

 

[HIStory]

They got it wrong there.
Michael didn´t rehearse every day.
If they were protecting Michael his final days they should at least know that..
They introduced Murray for Michael so of course they don´t want to blame Murray that much.

They do not claim to have proteced Michael in his final days.

And they did not introduce Murray to Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

I don't think he loved Sony, but notice how the whole broken headphones story in the book is based on the BGs assumption. They found the headphone broken and they concluded Michael broke it deliberately because he hated Sony so much. That's a jump to conclusions. In reality we do not know why those headphones were broken and what it meant, if it meant something at all.

The strangest thing--I thought of that too. I was thinking what if there was another reason for the torn headphones. Did he think of something annoying or got an annoying phone call that pissed him off? Was he listening to Thriller and then remembered about the hip hop, got pissed, pulled the headphones from his ear and tore them? We don't know. I remembered they claimed he was mad while talking on the phone and after he hung up he threw the phone and broke it. So if the phone was a sony phone and they came into the room and saw the broken phone, would they assume it was because the phone was manufactured by Sony. You just don't know...at the same time what they assume could be the real reason.

Mist funny about the perfume, but I am one that thinks he was just scenting the important parts. Believe me I see many women spraying perfume in that area after a bath. I spray my whole body too, because I am a perfume nut.

About the BG blaming those people connected to the AEG shows, how do they know so much about it if they did not accompany him to rehearsals or were at Carolwood? Are they just using information that is out there. I know they know about the deal from Vegas, and a comment Michael made to them.