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

[Bubs]

I haven't read the book yet, so I go by what you guys are saying here, but that party thingy got me wondering.
It cannot be party that was planned beforehand because no one knew whether Michael was going to be acquitted. There was possibility that jury could have sent Michael to jail, so sending invitations out would have been foolish. Practically there weren't that many hours to organise party, if there was one planned?

 

[speechlesslove4michael]

I have no interest in this book or Jermaines book or the Cascio book. As far as I'm concerned they're all traitors who blabbed Michael's personal lives in order to make money. How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trusted with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about him. They're ALL traitors and it's sickening what people would do for $$$ and it's a shame that people condone what they are doing. Is Michael not entitled to any privacy anymore? Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. UGH

 

[Ramona122003]

I have no interest in this book or Jermaines book or the Cascio book. As far as I'm concerned they're all traitors who blabbed Michael's personal lives in order to make money. How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trusted with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about him. They're ALL traitors and it's sickening what people would do for $$$ and it's a shame that people condone what they are doing. Is Michael not entitled to any privacy anymore? Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. UGH

The minute Michael became the biggest star in the world, he forever lost the right to privacy. That is the price one pays for fame. To say that no one should write about about Michael is about as realistic as saying that one one should write a book about Obama or Walt Disney. I am sure they all have stuff that they did not want the public to know, but since they are historic figures, they cannot complain when someone write anything personal about them.

 

[speechlesslove4michael]

The minute Michael became the biggest star in the world, he forever lost the right to privacy. That is the price one pays for fame. To say that no one should write about about Michael is about as realistic as saying that one one should write a book about Obama or Walt Disney. I am sure they all have stuff that they did not want the public to know, but since they are historic figures, they cannot complain when someone write anything personal about them.

How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trust with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about all of it. Things he had told them as FRIENDS. Things he had thought he could trust telling them. Things he would think they wouldn't tell anyone. And not only are they telling one person. They are telling the whole damn world in a book and making money off of it. There is a HUGE difference about media writing about things to do with Michael and people who are coming forward who were supposed to be friends and family to Michael who were told things by Michael in private, in confidence. They are ALL traitors. Is Michael not entitled to a personal and private life anymore without the fans having to know every single damn thing about his personal and private life including things that he told to people in confidence. Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. Just think for a minute and imagine how you would feel if your deepest secrets were published in a book for the world to see and people were making money off it. Would you want that book for sale? These are Michael's supposed "friends". Not some random journalist

 

[LastTear]

I haven't read the book yet, so I go by what you guys are saying here, but that party thingy got me wondering.
It cannot be party that was planned beforehand because no one knew whether Michael was going to be acquitted. There was possibility that jury could have sent Michael to jail, so sending invitations out would have been foolish. Practically there weren't that many hours to organise party, if there was one planned?

The book doesn't say that it was planned before the verdict was reached, it also doesn't say how long after the acquittal it, according to Grace, happened. All it says it 'after he was acquitted' she says 'we had a party at Neverland for him to celebrate, and nobody came' - then went on to discuss the 'nobody came' and who did come. They give no other details of the event.

As I said yesterday regardless of whether any event/party/get together actually happened the BG's have re told something that was told to them via Grace. I can't see how anyone gains anything about lying about it.

 

[qbee]

How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trust with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about all of it. Things he had told them as FRIENDS. Things he had thought he could trust telling them. Things he would think they wouldn't tell anyone. And not only are they telling one person. They are telling the whole damn world in a book and making money off of it. There is a HUGE difference about media writing about things to do with Michael and people who are coming forward who were supposed to be friends and family to Michael who were told things by Michael in private, in confidence. They are ALL traitors. Is Michael not entitled to a personal and private life anymore without the fans having to know every single damn thing about his personal and private life including things that he told to people in confidence. Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. Just think for a minute and imagine how you would feel if your deepest secrets were published in a book for the world to see and people were making money off it. Would you want that book for sale? These are Michael's supposed "friends". Not some random journalist

If that was the case all the world would see is made up negative media and tabloid crap and nothing of value from anyone who knew MJ to defend against that. There is nothing wrong with people writing about Michael and their experience with him. Its their story as much as it is his. Plus there is nothing vicious or harmful that comes out of this book or other books written about him. Try and Look at it this way.. We need a balance .. for history and his legacy. not just tabloid and media crap about MJ thrown at people IMO. Of course you are welcome to your "opinion" but please know it's not everyones opinion. that everyone who writes about their experience with MJ is a traitor. You need to look at both sides.

 

[gerryevans]

How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trust with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about all of it. Things he had told them as FRIENDS. Things he had thought he could trust telling them. Things he would think they wouldn't tell anyone. And not only are they telling one person. They are telling the whole damn world in a book and making money off of it. There is a HUGE difference about media writing about things to do with Michael and people who are coming forward who were supposed to be friends and family to Michael who were told things by Michael in private, in confidence. They are ALL traitors. Is Michael not entitled to a personal and private life anymore without the fans having to know every single damn thing about his personal and private life including things that he told to people in confidence. Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. Just think for a minute and imagine how you would feel if your deepest secrets were published in a book for the world to see and people were making money off it. Would you want that book for sale? These are Michael's supposed "friends". Not some random journalist

Later for random journalist, where do you think reputable historians get their information about their subjects from? They get it from sources closet to their subject. Historians cover every aspect of their subjects lives, from the very private to the professional, and biographies are a mainstain in literature AND education. The powerful and reknown have thousands of books written about them, including the minutia about their private lives. It's part of the fabric of being powerful and reknown. People want to know about them on a personal level.

I totally get being sensitive about books written about MJ. Unlike other famous people, I can't recall there being one where THREE trials disected and ripped them apart. The 2005 trial, the Murray trial, and the civil trial, which incidentally was waged by his beloved mother, the closet person to him other than his children who were also dragged into it all.

MJ was one of the most maligned famous people on the planet in print and out of print. Quite frankly, reading a book where he is just living his everyday life as a father, as a businessman, as an artist, and just a general human being is a relief for this fan.

And BTW, although I haven't finished reading the book, I haven't come across any "deepest secrets" yet, most of what I have read has been exposition from their viewpoint of things already publicly out there.

 

[speechlesslove4michael]

This is exactly why I keep my mouth shut on fan forums. So according to you people if someone told you something in confidence you would feel comfortable blabbing to it about everyone just so you could get some money. No offence but that's just wrong on so many levels

 

[speechlesslove4michael]

Later for random journalist, where do you think reputable historians get their information about their subjects from? They get it from sources closet to their subject. Historians cover every aspect of their subjects lives, from the very private to the professional, and biographies are a mainstain in literature AND education. The powerful and reknown have thousands of books written about them, including the minutia about their private lives. It's part of the fabric of being powerful and reknown. People want to know about them on a personal level.

I totally get being sensitive about books written about MJ. Unlike other famous people, I can't recall there being one where THREE trials disected and ripped them apart. The 2005 trial, the Murray trial, and the civil trial, which incidentally was waged by his beloved mother, the closet person to him other than his children who were also dragged into it all.

MJ was one of the most maligned famous people on the planet in print and out of print. Quite frankly, reading a book where he is just living his everyday life as a father, as a businessman, as an artist, and just a general human being is a relief for this fan.

And BTW, although I haven't finished reading the book, I haven't come across any "deepest secrets" yet, most of what I have read has been exposition from their viewpoint of things already publicly out there.

From what I have heard from other fans Frank Cascio talked about how Michael selected Michael's surrogate for Blanket in his book. Please enlighten me if you can on how that's not betraying Michael's confidence by publishing that in a book? I was using that as a general statement for all three books. In some form or another the books give out details to the public that shouldn't be there in order to get sales and it's disgusting. Sorry for getting defensive but Michael's privacy is important to me. He is entitled to it just like everyone else is no matter how famous he may have been

 

[gerryevans]

This is exactly why I keep my mouth shut on fan forums. So according to you people if someone told you something in confidence you would feel comfortable blabbing to it about everyone just so you could get some money. No offence but that's just wrong on so many levels

I agree with you that's just wrong. But I'm not seeing this book as you do, and there's nothing either of us is going to say to change our perspective. I hope you don't keep your mouth shut. Perspectives from all MJ fans are worthwhile.

 

[LastTear]

From what I have heard from other fans Frank Cascio talked about how Michael selected Michael's surrogate for Blanket in his book. Please enlighten me if you can on how that's not betraying Michael's confidence by publishing that in a book? I was using that as a general statement for all three books. In some form or another the books give out details to the public that shouldn't be there in order to get sales and it's disgusting. Sorry for getting defensive but Michael's privacy is important to me. He is entitled to it just like everyone else is no matter how famous he may have been

Three books? This one, Franks and Jermaine's, are those what you are referring to?

By by going by what you say then no one should ever do an interview or publish any words relating to Michaels life, be they friends or family. And that would be all well and good if we weren't inundated by other people making up stories. I understand what you mean and I can't say I disagree, however, given the circumstances where there is so much BS printed about Michael this IMO is a means to an end and any positive article balances out all those negative ones.

 

[Spyce]

How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trust with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about all of it. Things he had told them as FRIENDS. Things he had thought he could trust telling them. Things he would think they wouldn't tell anyone. And not only are they telling one person. They are telling the whole damn world in a book and making money off of it. There is a HUGE difference about media writing about things to do with Michael and people who are coming forward who were supposed to be friends and family to Michael who were told things by Michael in private, in confidence. They are ALL traitors. Is Michael not entitled to a personal and private life anymore without the fans having to know every single damn thing about his personal and private life including things that he told to people in confidence. Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. Just think for a minute and imagine how you would feel if your deepest secrets were published in a book for the world to see and people were making money off it. Would you want that book for sale? These are Michael's supposed "friends". Not some random journalist

And BTW, although I haven't finished reading the book, I haven't come across any "deepest secrets" yet, most of what I have read has been exposition from their viewpoint of things already publicly out there.

@Speechless: While I do support this book, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Michael does deserve and is entitled to his privacy. However, as I read your posts, one question keeps nagging at the back of my mind: have you even read this book yet? To me, the claims you are making are not correct. Bill & Javon do not share "intimate details" or any "deep secrets", and if you were to read the book, you would know this. As Gerry said, what you read in the book is their own personal viewpoint of things, their own personal experiences of working for Michael. I have no doubts that they were privy to far more than what is discussed in this book and had they wanted to be vile and salacious, they absolutely could have been. But they weren't. Instead they share stories about how Paris brought one of them a cup of hot cocoa on a cold night, or how they would drive to north Las Vegas (an area known for being economically deprived) and Michael would hand money to homeless through the window. Then when he ran out of money, he would get upset- with himself- for not having brought more. Or how they would go on drives out of the city and into the mountains and just drive for hours while Michael read his fan letters.

What is so wrong with such stories? What is so deep and dark about that, that it should never be shared? Personally, I am glad to hear such stories. In fact, the whole story about handing out money to the homeless made me cry. That was a beautiful thing that he did. And he didn't do it for any recognition. In fact, as he was handing out the money, his window was open only a crack- enough for his hand to fit through- and the windows were tinted so nobody could see who was dishing out the money. He did it simply because he felt it was the right thing to do- to give to the less fortunate.

Now, yes, there was the instance of the whole Friend/Flower thing and while I agree that this was not necessary to put into the book (I really don't see how it added anything at all; in fact if you took it out, you wouldn't even miss it), the fact remains that it is there. So I try to put a positive spin on that and say they really didn't go into too much detail. They spent only a couple pages discussing the events and that was it. I think the worst that they say is that they could hear Michael and his guest kissing in the back seat. (Go Michael! :lol Personally, I think people are making far more out of that whole situation than is really necessary.

In closing, as gerryevans said, I hope you don't keep quiet. It's good to have a difference of opinions. If you want to debate a topic, that is fine, but make sure you can back up your statements with facts. You can't debate emotions.

 

[goldiee]

Can my memory be trusted to clear one thing up finally? As an oldhead fan who was here during the trial, there WAS a party after the acquittal. And some fans were there, fans who used to be on this board but drifted away, I guess that's why there's a debate, only a few of us still here remember it. I didn't go but the story was it was pretty sparsely attended, Katherine was there, maybe Joe and Latoya, a few of the jurors and some fans, no celebrities and Michael did not attend nor his children. But it DID happen. It was mostly said to be boring because I guess people wanted to see Michael. There was also a party at Neverland at the beginning of the trial but when Mez came in, he put a stop to any more parties.

 

[Bubs]

Later for random journalist, where do you think reputable historians get their information about their subjects from? They get it from sources closet to their subject. Historians cover every aspect of their subjects lives, from the very private to the professional, and biographies are a mainstain in literature AND education. The powerful and reknown have thousands of books written about them, including the minutia about their private lives. It's part of the fabric of being powerful and reknown. People want to know about them on a personal level.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^^ That. wub: Ben) Sorry carry on ......back to Michael,

 

[Victory22]

How do you think Michael would feel if he knew that these people who he had trust with the most intimate details of his life had gone out there and written a book about all of it. Things he had told them as FRIENDS. Things he had thought he could trust telling them. Things he would think they wouldn't tell anyone. And not only are they telling one person. They are telling the whole damn world in a book and making money off of it. There is a HUGE difference about media writing about things to do with Michael and people who are coming forward who were supposed to be friends and family to Michael who were told things by Michael in private, in confidence. They are ALL traitors. Is Michael not entitled to a personal and private life anymore without the fans having to know every single damn thing about his personal and private life including things that he told to people in confidence. Or does everyone want to know every single detail of his personal life until everything that he had kept private is public knowledge. Just think for a minute and imagine how you would feel if your deepest secrets were published in a book for the world to see and people were making money off it. Would you want that book for sale? These are Michael's supposed "friends". Not some random journalist

How do I think Michael would feel? Michael has had every aspect of his life including the paternity of his children dissected and made public in the media for decades. The majority of his private life has been exposed to the public by his own family and portrayed in a very negative way. I think Michael would be relieved and comforted by a book that tells the world he was a great father. All the public had of Michael’s relationship with his children before his death is Blanket being dangled from a balcony with the media crucifying him and calling him crazy/ irresponsible. The bodyguards were not his close confidants they were employees who seem to have loved and respected him a great deal. I see no betrayal in what they revealed.

 

[terrell]

I heard the guys talk on Tom Joyner show. From what I can tell, these guys seem to care about MJ. Was MJ perfect? NO, and I think the average person understand that about MJ as we do about all of our lives. To me, the problems MJ had was no different than anyone else (MJ was famous and that is what made his problems more intense); and most of the comments that was posted and read about the interview with these guys seem to only show MJ went through what most of us go through. Do we get upset with our siblings? YES. Do our parents or a parent get on our nerves at times? Yes. Do we still love them? Yes. MJ had dinner with women? Of course. Did MJ take care of his kids? yes, etc. When MJ worked, did MJ wanted privacy and was he given that privacy? Yes. etc. So the guys ONLY revealed Mj was just doing what most of us do. Yes, One of the guys said he felt sad for MJ at times due to his fame and what he had to endure but MJ knew he was famous and was a target for trash (and when you break that down, don't we all have haters who know us. Look on your own job. Isnt there someone on the job you tries to destroy you if he/she could? MJ just deal with this on a "public figure" scale. I see nothing wrong with the book. I prefer this book than those other books in the past that were clearly lying books by haters.

 

[AliCat]

I haven't read the book yet, so I go by what you guys are saying here, but that party thingy got me wondering.
It cannot be party that was planned beforehand because no one knew whether Michael was going to be acquitted. There was possibility that jury could have sent Michael to jail, so sending invitations out would have been foolish. Practically there weren't that many hours to organise party, if there was one planned?

I'm so very glad you are questioning certain details, that's why you wonder what is truth in the book and what is fiction.

Fan's were allowed into "Neverland," after the verdict was read because they have told us as much. I've also seen where there was one party that was thrown in Michael's honor that fan's had put together, because there is video of it on youtube.com, but when Grace is quoted in the book, I'd take that with a grain of salt.

Maybe because of the "People" magazine article is where the author of the book, Tanner Colby, is quoting as his source. Maybe Grace is the one behind the story and maybe this is another reason Michael Jackson wasn't very fond of her, as Paris Jackson testified. After all, during the time period that Grace and the bodyguard's were around Michael, working, somebody was tipping Roger Friedman off. This detail was talked about in the bodyguard's book, that Michael would set up the bodyguard's to see if they were going to the Press about his personal life. During this time period, Grace was mentioned quite a bit, as she was the power behind the throne and running Michael's empire, which we know is not true. Just the salacious headlines had the reader being told were true about Michael Jackson. The bodyguard's just confirmed the obvious, that different management came and went and how this came about, because Michael was losing trust in what he believed at first, was something to help him, business wise. Londell McMillian was hired because it was his speciality, as a lawyer, to help a person to restructure their finances, when it seems no one else could. Tom Barrack wondered why he was being approached by Michael Jackson's people, when Ron Burkle had been involved with Michael and his finance's and if Ron Burkle couldn't do it, what was going on, financially speaking with Michael. This is why I have questioned the validity of the book.

 

[Thriller 25]

<quote>If you had somehow dreamt up the notion that because ‘Thriller 25&#8242; was released via Sony Music that meant Jackson had patched things up with the label and was on good terms with them, you are mistaken.

Can anyone say more about this?

 

[Ramona122003]

The book doesn't say that it was planned before the verdict was reached, it also doesn't say how long after the acquittal it, according to Grace, happened. All it says it 'after he was acquitted' she says 'we had a party at Neverland for him to celebrate, and nobody came' - then went on to discuss the 'nobody came' and who did come. They give no other details of the event.

As I said yesterday regardless of whether any event/party/get together actually happened the BG's have re told something that was told to them via Grace. I can't see how anyone gains anything about lying about it.

I do no think the bodyguards or even Grace lied, I think they exaggerated. The only party that matched what Grace's described does not match what happen. Had a party and no one came, including Michael, had 400 guests. The get together after the trial was not a party. The only party that matched Grace's description was the party apparently thrown in 2003 to cheer Michael up and you can guess why no one came to that.

So, that 300 celebrity guest could not have happened. Wouldn't be the first time people exaggerated a story to prove a point.

 

[Warszawa320]

I'm so very glad you are questioning certain details, that's why you wonder what is truth in the book and what is fiction.

Fan's were allowed into "Neverland," after the verdict was read because they have told us as much. I've also seen where there was one party that was thrown in Michael's honor that fan's had put together, because there is video of it on youtube.com, but when Grace is quoted in the book, I'd take that with a grain of salt.

Maybe because of the "People" magazine article is where the author of the book, Tanner Colby, is quoting as his source. Maybe Grace is the one behind the story and maybe this is another reason Michael Jackson wasn't very fond of her, as Paris Jackson testified. After all, during the time period that Grace and the bodyguard's were around Michael, working, somebody was tipping Roger Friedman off. This detail was talked about in the bodyguard's book, that Michael would set up the bodyguard's to see if they were going to the Press about his personal life. During this time period, Grace was mentioned quite a bit, as she was the power behind the throne and running Michael's empire, which we know is not true. Just the salacious headlines had the reader being told were true about Michael Jackson. The bodyguard's just confirmed the obvious, that different management came and went and how this came about, because Michael was losing trust in what he believed at first, was something to help him, business wise. Londell McMillian was hired because it was his speciality, as a lawyer, to help a person to restructure their finances, when it seems no one else could. Tom Barrack wondered why he was being approached by Michael Jackson's people, when Ron Burkle had been involved with Michael and his finance's and if Ron Burkle couldn't do it, what was going on, financially speaking with Michael. This is why I have questioned the validity of the book.

Why you just REALLY read the book and then discuss about it. You try so hard to "question the validity of the book" in your posts but it's very clear you did not read it. As you mentioned before you went through the whole book in the book store and you feel competent to comment on so many issues. And unfortunately you are not competent at all. Just in the beginning of your post you give the clue you have no idea about the contest of the book. First where the author Tanner Colby is quoting People magazine as the source. It's a total BS. If you would read the book you would know the context in which the information about the party was included. It wasn't even necessary to verify it because it just only add little bit to the bodyguards own observation and feelings of the big hypocrisy among MJ's family and so called friends after his death. And their feelings are not different than many of Michael's dedicated "followers". Then you are posting the informations from different articles about MJ's business like most fans wouldn't know them already. The book validity is not about the facts we hear before. The book validity is about very credible presentation of the person behind the curtain, his day to day dealing with the "craziness"around him during the last 2,5 years of his life. The person whose main focus is on being the best father for his 3 children. You did mention the name of Tanner Colby like he would be the main author of this book. I wonder why? Sure it was the great choice to use the good professional writer to help with this book because it's very well written. However 95% of the book it's bodyguards stories and they are the ones who are the main authors. They put a lot of work to make it possible.

 

[LastTear]

I do no think the bodyguards or even Grace lied, I think they exaggerated. The only party that matched what Grace's described does not match what happen. Had a party and no one came, including Michael, had 400 guests. The get together after the trial was not a party. The only party that matched Grace's description was the party apparently thrown in 2003 to cheer Michael up and you can guess why no one came to that.

So, that 300 celebrity guest could not have happened. Wouldn't be the first time people exaggerated a story to prove a point.

I don't see the point in exaggerating it tbh, the bodyguards didn't gain much by adding it to the book, they could have talked about the lack of celebrity visitors for example. Maybe Grace exaggerated, idk.

We seem to know it didn't happen, not at Neverland anyway, but my point remains that we don't know what was planned to start off with.

 

[Soundmind]

we do know that as soon as the verdict was out MJ run out from his family ,waited on a yacht owned by a billionaire friend until he could get his passport back from SBPD to leave for Bahrain. The family run to Roger complaining about his disappearance the very next week , they knew he could not have left the country as he did not yet have his passport still they could not find him.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

Can my memory be trusted to clear one thing up finally? As an oldhead fan who was here during the trial, there WAS a party after the acquittal. And some fans were there, fans who used to be on this board but drifted away, I guess that's why there's a debate, only a few of us still here remember it. I didn't go but the story was it was pretty sparsely attended, Katherine was there, maybe Joe and Latoya, a few of the jurors and some fans, no celebrities and Michael did not attend nor his children. But it DID happen. It was mostly said to be boring because I guess people wanted to see Michael. There was also a party at Neverland at the beginning of the trial but when Mez came in, he put a stop to any more parties.

I think you're getting parties mixed up, the one at Neverland in Dec '03, many fans were invited to, not many celebrities were there. There was no party held on Michael's behalf after the verdict. There were many fan parties, including one by MJJF in Vegas which many members attended.


I'm not saying the BG's are lying about it, all I'm saying is it's inaccurate. But they have lied about things that I see no reason to, such as previously claiming MJ was good friends with Steve Jobs and Steve gave MJ a few free iPhones before they were released, now in the book they give a completely different story. Which version if any is true? I believe a majority of their stories probably are true, I haven't red the book yet tho, but take what you read from them with a grain of salt.

 

[AliCat]

Why you just REALLY read the book and then discuss about it. You try so hard to "question the validity of the book" in your posts but it's very clear you did not read it. As you mentioned before you went through the whole book in the book store and you feel competent to comment on so many issues. And unfortunately you are not competent at all. Just in the beginning of your post you give the clue you have no idea about the contest of the book. First where the author Tanner Colby is quoting People magazine as the source. It's a total BS. If you would read the book you would know the context in which the information about the party was included. It wasn't even necessary to verify it because it just only add little bit to the bodyguards own observation and feelings of the big hypocrisy among MJ's family and so called friends after his death. And their feelings are not different than many of Michael's dedicated "followers". Then you are posting the informations from different articles about MJ's business like most fans wouldn't know them already. The book validity is not about the facts we hear before. The book validity is about very credible presentation of the person behind the curtain, his day to day dealing with the "craziness"around him during the last 2,5 years of his life. The person whose main focus is on being the best father for his 3 children. You did mention the name of Tanner Colby like he would be the main author of this book. I wonder why? Sure it was the great choice to use the good professional writer to help with this book because it's very well written. However 95% of the book it's bodyguards stories and they are the ones who are the main authors. They put a lot of work to make it possible.

I completely understand your rationalization, but people do have different opinions. All should be welcome, even if someone doesn't agree with another's viewpoint. I have made some very valid points, including about Ron Burkle, but you rationalize your argument and say what you say to make me invalid about what I say. That's not fair or nice now is it!

 

[Warszawa320]

I completely understand your rationalization, but people do have different opinions. All should be welcome, even if someone doesn't agree with another's viewpoint. I have made some very valid points, including about Ron Burkle, but you rationalize your argument and say what you say to make me invalid about what I say. That's not fair or nice now is it!

Where your valid points are? You said you question the validity of this book because those valid points but it's just make no sense. I understand that you are not the fan of this book but if you want to discuss about it as deeply as you are trying, at least read it. If you don't want to read it that's fine too. Just don't pretend that you know the subject.

 

[GreenEyes]

I think you're getting parties mixed up, the one at Neverland in Dec '03, many fans were invited to, not many celebrities were there. There was no party held on Michael's behalf after the verdict. There were many fan parties, including one by MJJF in Vegas which many members attended.


I'm not saying the BG's are lying about it, all I'm saying is it's inaccurate. But they have lied about things that I see no reason to, such as previously claiming MJ was good friends with Steve Jobs and Steve gave MJ a few free iPhones before they were released, now in the book they give a completely different story. Which version if any is true? I believe a majority of their stories probably are true, I haven't red the book yet tho, but take what you read from them with a grain of salt.

I'm confused. You are saying there were no parties held on Michael's behalf after the verdict.

But what about the huge party at the Chumash Indian Casino in California about 5 days after the verdict where over 300 people were invited (June 17, 2005). It was widely reported in the media:

Here is a picture from the event:

And all the media stories about it.

http://www.today.com/id/8256134/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/jackson-family-friends-gather-bash/

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1074180,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackson-clan-celebrates-aquittal/

I wondering if THIS event here is what the bodyguards were referencing to in their book where they were calling out the no-show celebrity friends, but they mistakenly reference Neverland as the location of the event?

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

I'm confused. You are saying there were no parties held on Michael's behalf after the verdict.

But what about the huge party at the Chumash Indian Casino in California about 5 days after the verdict where over 300 people were invited (June 17, 2005). It was widely reported in the media:

That wasn't organized by MJ or his team, it was a Tito concert that he turned into a party, he was doing quite a few concerts at the casino around that time.

 

[GreenEyes]

That wasn't organized by MJ or his team, it was a Tito concert that he turned into a party, he was doing quite a few concerts at the casino around that time.

OK, it wasn't organized by MJ or his team. But it was an "event" (whoever organized it) to mark the end of the trial and to thank everyone and to honor Michael. A juror was there and they name one of the defense attorney's too. The media tried to slip in but were thrown out by the casino cops.

So... I'm thinking it's this event that the bodyguards are referring to in their book. They just got the location possibly mixed up.

 

[Tygger]

My U.S. friend told me there was a television special about the Simpson criminal trial. She said she was glad there was no mention of Michael harboring Simpson after his acquittal as these authors have stated.