Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

ah right ok. sorry

why Janet is back peddling on these intenventions.

shes now saying they didnt hap?

 

[StacyJ]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

ah right ok. sorry


shes now saying they didnt hap?

that's what I would like to know. I don't remember hearing her take anything back

 

[TheChosenOne]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I just watched a vid where Dame Elizabeth spoke about helping Michael with his painkiller addiction in the 1990s. She said she recognised the signs (since she had had a similar problem) and she made sure Michael got help.

It is my personal opinion that if Michael had a problem recently - as is suggested by these 'interventions' - then Elizabeth Taylor would have red-flagged it to Michael. And his love and trust in her would have made him seek help.

As I said this is just my opinion. But to me it is telling that his family members could not reach him.

 

[xthunderx2]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I just watched a vid where Dame Elizabeth spoke about helping Michael with his painkiller addiction in the 1990s. She said she recognised the signs (since she had had a similar problem) and she made sure Michael got help.

It is my personal opinion that if Michael had a problem recently - as is suggested by these 'interventions' - then Elizabeth Taylor would have red-flagged it to Michael. And his love and trust in her would have made him seek help.

As I said this is just my opinion. But to me it is telling that his family members could not reach him.

well said...:clapping::clapping: there were no interventions..and they know it...smh

 

[TheChosenOne]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

xthunderx2 - my problem is that I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe that when members of the Jackson family said that there were interventions, there were interventions.

But perhaps they were told by others that Michael had a problem and they believed the stories. I just don't know.

I know I am being naive but I really do want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Moulin Rouge]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I just watched a vid where Dame Elizabeth spoke about helping Michael with his painkiller addiction in the 1990s. She said she recognised the signs (since she had had a similar problem) and she made sure Michael got help.

It is my personal opinion that if Michael had a problem recently - as is suggested by these 'interventions' - then Elizabeth Taylor would have red-flagged it to Michael. And his love and trust in her would have made him seek help.

As I said this is just my opinion. But to me it is telling that his family members could not reach him.

If he didn't think he had a problem I don't think anyone could talk him into seeking help. Maybe Elizabeth did talk to him and maybe she didn't. She herself has been ill for the past decade, i don't think she could have monitored him as much as she had in the past.

 

[TheChosenOne]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

It is true that if Michael felt he did not have a problem he would not have agreed to seek help.

But I find it a bit incredible that a man who

1] had a problem in the past and sought help

2] had three children who were his top priority

3] was making notes about using drugs that had the same properties but were less addictive

would be so deep in denial that he would not respond to overtures from his family.

PS the use of the word 'monitoring' is interesting ...

 

[xthunderx2]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

xthunderx2 - my problem is that I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe that when members of the Jackson family said that there were interventions, there were interventions.

But perhaps they were told by others that Michael had a problem and they believed the stories. I just don't know.

I know I am being naive but I really do want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

oh my I too am a HUGE benefit of the doubt giver,,,that is a big problem of mine...but when I see the autopsy report and THAT refutes the claims of family members...that is were the benefit stops for me. I would hope that the autopsy report would be enough for them also. That's all...and I do understand where you are coming from in your thinking.

 

[xthunderx2]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

It is true that if Michael felt he did not have a problem he would not have agreed to seek help.

But I find it a bit incredible that a man who

1] had a problem in the past and sought help

2] had three children who were his top priority

3] was making notes about using drugs that had the same properties but were less addictive

would be so deep in denial that he would not respond to overtures from his family.

PS the use of the word 'monitoring' is interesting ...

now see this is what I have been disgusing with my daughter since last night...actually we discussed numbers 1..2 and 3...especially 3 since they tried to come out with that demerol story....it just all makes you stop and question yourself about that benefit of the doubt stuff as far as family is concerned...atleast for me it does.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

It is true that if Michael felt he did not have a problem he would not have agreed to seek help.

But I find it a bit incredible that a man who

1] had a problem in the past and sought help

2] had three children who were his top priority

3] was making notes about using drugs that had the same properties but were less addictive

would be so deep in denial that he would not respond to overtures from his family.

PS the use of the word 'monitoring' is interesting ...

Excellent^^. Also, we have a report that says he did not have A PROBLEM!!!

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

It is true that if Michael felt he did not have a problem he would not have agreed to seek help.

But I find it a bit incredible that a man who

1] had a problem in the past and sought help

2] had three children who were his top priority

3] was making notes about using drugs that had the same properties but were less addictive

would be so deep in denial that he would not respond to overtures from his family.

PS the use of the word 'monitoring' is interesting ...

Exactly!!!

 

[TheChosenOne]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I am afraid you and I will go around and around in circles with this. So I am just going to leave it at this - it was quite possible that Michael was taking medication because of various health issues and was suffering from the side effects. Because he appeared out of it does not mean he was dependent.

 

[yaazgurl]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I thought thise site did not allow talk of even alluding to Michael being addict yet Moulin is being entertained. Imm sure if she went inthe Liz thread and insisted that Liz was also a life long recovering addiict it wouldn't be allowed. I'm glad I re read and saw that a distinction was made between dependence and addiction but there is no indication MJ had a dependence either based on the facts we know as of now.

 

[Thetruthbetold]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

The family will speak kindly of him from now on because they need to prove that he wasn't an addict to win this case this case is serious MJJ was killed off because he expose a hole lot of truth within the music industry and what was going in with him and others evils around him he was worth so much and was dragged down by the media and others its so sad what he had to go through to get to the top and prove himself he was given those drugs to keep him druged up and unaware of how his money was being taken from him and all those contracts he sign thinking people hearts was like his may he rest in peace.

 

[Moulin Rouge]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I thought thise site did not allow talk of even alluding to Michael being addict yet Moulin is being entertained. Imm sure if she went inthe Liz thread and insisted that Liz was also a life long recovering addiict it wouldn't be allowed. Moulin does not know whether Michael had a dependence or an addiction yet she is free to play arm chair diagnosis. This simply should not be allowed. MJ dealt with an issue in 93. That's what we know and the prescriptions found at his home as well as the fct that5 none of the prescriptions he had a problem with were found in his system as well as the good health he was found in should stop any furth er talk.

Liz was but she died at the ripe age of 79 from congestive heart failure not from alcohol so why would anyone bring that up. You aren't comprehending my post, I did not say Michael died from addiction or was in bad health, i said taking propofol to sleep is a problem and that there is a possibility that interventions could have taken place. This does Not make his death any less a homcide or lessen the blame on Murray.

 

[JMie]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Liz was but she died at the ripe age of 79 from congestive heart failure not from alcohol so why would anyone bring that up. You aren't comprehending my post, I did not say Michael died from addiction or was in bad health, i said taking propofol to sleep is a problem and that there is a possibility that interventions could have taken place. This does Not make his death any less a homcide or lessen the blame on Murray.

But the Jacksons said themselves that they hadn't heard of propofol and didn't know what it was until after Michael passed away and the cause of death was established. So there is not a single chance those "interventions" were about taking propofol to sleep. They just didn't know about it.

 

[yaazgurl]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Liz was but she died at the ripe age of 79 from congestive heart failure not from alcohol so why would anyone bring that up. You aren't comprehending my post, I did not say Michael died from addiction or was in bad health, i said taking propofol to sleep is a problem and that there is a possibility that interventions could have taken place. This does Not make his death any less a homcide or lessen the blame on Murray.

What does it matter what age he died if his death was HOMICIDE why are you insisting on talking about addiction/dependenc and life long addiction? It makes no sense to even talk about5 interventions when it is not related to MJ death and the Jacksons were trying to insist that it did. We don't have to mention that there are apparent holes in their intervention story as well. Thanks JMie for making it simple.

 

[enlightenu]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I used monitoring because she literally did, remember she had to feed him at times.

During 2001-2003 something was not right with Michael, in his eyes he wasn't there it looks like he looked under the influence of something at times and allegedly thats around the time one of the interventions took place. Then there was that grueling trial, if he was on something could you blame him that's alot to deal with but he got through it and he seemed much better his last couple of years. I don't think he died from an addiction but I do think he may have been dependent which is different.

Michael had health issues he was going through at the time and he was on medication---allegedly a lupus flare-up where he was put on prednisone. That will give you side effects, including weight gain. Remember during the early 2000's Michael was bigger than he usually was. It was because of the meds he was on.

Off course he didn't look well at the MSG tribute concerts of 2001. He wasn't feeling well. It wasn't because he was strung out.

I have been prescribed medications after surgery that I had and I had to finish ALL of it..but they made me groggy, loopy and even nauseated at times. ALL prescriptions have side effects and different people are effected different ways.

 

[enlightenu]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

he was given those drugs to keep him druged up and unaware of how his money was being taken from him and all those contracts he sign thinking people hearts was like his may he rest in peace.

And these are the same people who were calling him a drug addict.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I am afraid you and I will go around and around in circles with this. So I am just going to leave it at this - it was quite possible that Michael was taking medication because of various health issues and was suffering from the side effects. Because he appeared out of it does not mean he was dependent.

exaclty, this was well documented by mez during 03-05 about the medications he had to take for his issues and how it would effect him sometimes.

 

[ginvid]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

This thread for finding evidence to refute the family's stories of interventions. So please do not come in the thread to start an argument and/or derail it because you do not agree with what is being discussed.

Also, I know I don't have to repeat the rules of the board? We all know them. Please follow them.

 

[Sophielo]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Final warning. All posts alluding to Michael being a drug addict will be deleted and if the arguing does not stop the thread will close and trouble makers dealt with accordingly.

 

[ginvid]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Moulin Rouge has a repeated history of calling/implying Michael Jackson is/was a drug addict one way or the other, yet nothing happens against her.
Yet mods threaten everyone who dares to state the truth as it is without sugercoating about the Jackson's. It's indeed hypocritical.

Being having had dependency issues has NOTHING to do with his death yet your making it your mission to bring it up as often as possible.

@ mods How come Obvious disrespect against Michael Jackson is being tolerated to be dragged in every thread yet calling the likes of Randy, Jermaine, Katherine by what they truly are is not:?! How come everyone of those posts get being deleted and warnings are being made not bring up 'unrelated' stuff those Jackson's did in the past in every thread, yet bringing UNRELATED Dependency issues of Michael is allowed?!

For some people no matter what you do, you are never going to do enough. For some people, they choose to ignore what does not fit into their own ideas. For some people, being loud, disrespectful, bitter, haughty and self assuming is the only way they know how to communicate. They act as if they cannot tell the difference, yet as soon as someone does it to them, they are calling it out.

That is what you call hypocritical.

I am sorry Sophie, I know you were trying to be the bigger person and ignore these comments, but I know all of the mods here put in MANY hours to try and do something positive on the board. And I get so sick of people constantly putting down everything we do because they can't have their way all of the time.

Whatever.

 

[twinklEE]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

For some people no matter what you do, you are never going to do enough. For some people, they choose to ignore what does not fit into their own ideas. For some people, being loud, disrespectful, bitter, haughty and self assuming is the only way they know how to communicate. They act as if they cannot tell the difference, yet as soon as someone does it to them, they are calling it out.

That is what you call hypocritical.

Whatever you say Ginvid you know yourself you were the one turning a blind eye on her posts. You KNOW that,

 

[ginvid]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Blind eye, make me laugh some more. Before you even posted, I had already deleted posts of hers for making claims of dependency. However, some of what she said was answered so well, I didnt want to delete all of that just in case if someone genuinely (but wrongly)felt otherwise, they could read responses would already know what the answer wasand would not start down the same path. So, I choose to delete what was clearly off, and leave a warning in the thread so the thread could get back on topic and back to its original purpose.

Things happen here that you are never aware of. But of course, since I know that can't seem plausible to a young woman who thinks she knows everything going on, it does not surprise me that you acted the way you did.

 

[twinklEE]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Blind eye, make me laugh some more. Before you even posted, I had already deleted posts of hers for making claims of dependency. However, some of what she said was answered so well, I didnt want to delete all of that just in case if someone genuinely (but wrongly)felt otherwise, they could read responses would already know what the answer wasand would not start down the same path. So, I choose to delete what was clearly off, and leave a warning in the thread so the thread could get back on topic and back to its original purpose.

Things happen here that you are never aware of. But of course, since I know that can't seem plausible to a young woman who thinks she knows everything going on, it does not surprise me that you acted the way you did.

Nice answer Ginvid, and FYI if I'd really think I knew everything that's going on, if I thought that I wouldn't be on this message board. Besides, which way did I act? Because I called the obvious out? You felt it was necessary to defend yoursel,f after I made a general complaint not even addressing you personally, but you knew it was directed at you, because you know what I was referring to. Also there is a huge difference between your warning and Sophielo's warning.

 

[ginvid]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I replied because your post was pure BS and I refused to let it go whether you were talking about me or anybody else who works on the forum. I don't only defend myself but anyone that represents this place. You are so young you can't even understand this.
Like I said, for some you will never do enough.

Goodnight.

 

[twinklEE]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I replied because your post was pure BS and I refused to let it go whether you were talking about me or anybody else who works on the forum. I don't only defend myself but anyone that represents this place. You are so young you can't even understand this.
Like I said, for some you will never do enough.

Goodnight.

It may have been BS for you, but it wasn't BS in actuality .
Goodnight Ginvid

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

I thought thise site did not allow talk of even alluding to Michael being addict yet Moulin is being entertained. Imm sure if she went inthe Liz thread and insisted that Liz was also a life long recovering addiict it wouldn't be allowed. I'm glad I re read and saw that a distinction was made between dependence and addiction but there is no indication MJ had a dependence either based on the facts we know as of now.

Yazz, see if this works for you. There are certain names in the Jackson forum connected to ideas showing Michael in a negative light while other members of the family are applauded. I skip over these posts once I see the names, even when I encounter the names in other parts of the forum. The more we respond, the more such ideas are typed up in the threads. I mean how much times are we going to tell individuals to read the autopsy report. They have read it and dismissed it. Let them go in peace.

 

[Diplomate]

Re: Jacksons & intervention claims (Read post#22 letter by Katherine & others DENYING interventions)

Team twinklEE! :lol: