*goes out on a limb...not a respectful one, so apologies in advance to anyone offended*
MAYBE..it was an intervention to get Michael off his arse for a Jackson5 reunion tour. If they did suspect drug use was keeping him from getting off his arse, the intevention may have been moreso to get him cleaned up so he could tour. :ermm: Not all "interventions" are about drugs. Some family's do them to rescue a member from an abusive spouse or to rescue them from life choices they aren't in agreement with. "Intervention" doesn't have to mean drugs, per se. It just means someone feels the need to step in and intervene for the sake of stopping and/OR facilitating a situation to their liking (i.e. reunion tour).
Now, I do remember that interview Janet gave about "one brother" being on the fence about the tour during that time as well. She also said if that brother did not want to participate and wanted to focus on his own career, then the family had to respect that brother's decision. So, to me, it looks like Michael...errr... that brother...was starting to come down on the side of the fence better known as "thanks, but no thanks" or at best had made it known that he was trying to focus on doing his own thing. Remember, in late summer til the end of 2007 we had the L'Uomo Vogue photoshoot and the Ebony interview to begin the celebration of T25 which went into 2008. He was in the studio with Will.I.Am and working with other artists to re-do songs on Thriller. Looked like Michael was at the very least making an effort to do things creatively...just not necessarily with his family.
Thanks for posting those articles, elusive. I always feel it's important to take a look at everything that was going on during a timeline in question for a clearer picture of a puzzle. Nail on the head. I believe some of Randy's "intervention" had to do with the Stabler lawsuit. But that's just a belief.
As for the "druggie" thing, I'm not sure the guards made him out to be one. Druggies don't act erratically ONLY once or twice a month. And yes, side-effects of approved/prescribed medication can make someone appear intoxicated...which is why dentists/doctors advise folks not to drive or to be careful driving and/or using any kind of machinery after certain procedures or when taking certain meds. You can take Nyquil or over-the-counter flu meds or allergy meds that give this same warning for normal doses. People can feel drowsy, jittery or act erratic after taking a basic dose. It's unfortunate that anyone can then use behavior like that to automatically conclude a person was "high" or "on something" for any other purpose than what was needed. That's not to say Michael didn't have enuf ish going on in his life to make a person want to "escape", just saying it would be a disservice to him and his memory to assume that if it wasn't in fact the case. Can't say it enuf. There's no way to dispute it. The one person who could, if he felt it was necessary, is no longer here...so it's a free-for-all of opinions/speculations/perceptions for ever and ever now.
In the Dieter deposition he did acknowledge being "out of it" at times because of medications, as was hinted by T-Mez during the trial, but by no means does that make someone a druggie. It simply means the medication they are taking is strong enough to impair them at times. Nothing more, nothing less.
Personally, I have a feeling in order to get this book to fly off the shelves, these guards are going to have to continue to violate the privacy Michael worked so hard to keep even if it's for the sake of "defending" him in some way. Nothing can harm him, now, but I feel people should still keep his kids in mind when deciding to put all his business out into the street...true, false, exaggerated or whatever. It can't hurt him anymore, but it can hurt them.
Thank you. I'm starting to agree with others who believe there's something more at play here. When you start giving a private (altho now deceased) man's confidential papers to journalist for public consumption, something is up. They have to know that's not cool no matter how you slice it. Red flag just went up for me. Seriously, WTF?! And how do we know that info was acquired legitimately with MJ's permission at the time and not hacked from Michael's computer? No way to know, imo.
