Rant

This blog was supposed to be for just rant purposes at first - so why not to return to origins?
I don't have too much to say, I just have several subjects on my mind.
Is it normal to keep people in hospital for so long after suicidal attempts? Does Paris really needs so much brainwashing, I mean therapy?.. What is Debbie Rowe's role in all this drama?
Just from my point of view Paris actually really needs just to grow very thick skin and a good portion of cynicism. Oh, and to have her caring relatives at a good distance. BTW what was wrong with allowing her to go to Marilyn Manson show? I guess the family could afford it and nothing would happen to Paris at the concert with a bunch of bodyguards. Besides just a couple of days before the suicidal attempt Prince attended a concert with his girlfriend. So?..
Meanwhile Prince gave a testimony at court. It's really interesting that he saw Randy Philips at the house talking to Conrad Murray.
Isn't it too much of coincidence that Wade Robson came out with his claims (what is his soft spot I wonder?..) and tabloids dug out a 20-year old story about a couple who worked at Neverland?..
So far Katherine Jackson vs. AEG trial cleared to me why MJ behaved oddly before his passing - most probably adverse effects of propofol in form of lack of normal sleep.
And that good looking doctor with unpronounceable last name implanted an anti-drug patch in Michael's abdomen - I think it was removed later, that's why Michael had a scar there.

The Jackson Family Wars. Part Multiple

Katherine Jackson is alive and finally home... But her grandchildren are on the warpath. These precocious kids are fighting with a weapon that their relatives have no idea how to handle - truth.
Prince Jackson went on Twitter to say:

I would first like to start off this tweet by thanking the fans that have always stood by me and my family, my dad really appreciated your support and I still treasure it to this day. As I am sure everyone is well aware of the events that have been going on. I have been holding off on backing up my sister and her tweets avidly because I was waiting for the time to reveal my side. As long as I can remember my dad had repeatedly warned me of certain people and their ways. Although I am happy my grandma was returned, after speaking with her I realized how misguided and how badly she was lied to. I’m really angry and hurt. The following image is of a group chat I had started to several family members. This group text message I had started was replied to but they didn’t know that I could see the responses. For this whole time, they denied us contact to our grandmother. “If you continue with your lies I will continue with the truth”

-Michael Jackson Jr.
and to post the picture:

It was on 23 of July...

Prince, baby, where did you learn to be soo official?!. LOL!
On a serious note: WHY it was THAT important not to let Prince and Paris to talk to their grandmother? What they could tell each other that was so dangerous? In case she wasn't held against her will in that Arizona spa. Probably I'm not too bright but I don't get it.


Update. Someone deleted Prince's tweets!
I don't like it. At all.
This strange tweet appeared first, than Prince's tweets were deleted - this one including.

Update 1. Kids got up, tweets were restored, unknown hacker stays unknown yet.

Update 2. Very funny outcome of all the drama: http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2012/07/roland-s-martin-exclusive-janet-jackson-others-family-members-barred-from-moms-california-home/ Some of Katherine's children are not allowed to visit their mom at home. That's probably not bad for her own safety.

Fans On Scott Thorson And Myths About Michael Jackson

I always loved history. I always thought it is fascinating how facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Why does it happen?.. Because people are either inaccurate and careless with the facts - or they try to distort them on purpose. I find it totally HILARIOUS how those who complain about lies and inaccuracies make lies and inaccuracies themselves!
Unfortunately Michael Jackson passed to the history almost three years ago. Nowadays mythologizers put their efforts into casting MJ into a bronze statue that has to stay in history. Here I want to offer a little (well, actually it's going to be quite long...) example of how it is going on.
I'm talking about a blog called http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/. I think it has several authors and they are quite fruitful. Let's examine their reaction towards a recent interview by Scott Thorson - I wrote about it: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html.
Here is a blogpost I'm going to analyse: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/lies-about-michael-jackson-will-scott-thorson-understand-that-blood-money-has-never-done-anyone-any-good/.
Let's start from the title of the blogpost. "LIES ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON. Will Scott Thorson blah-blah-blah..." A reader (who knows who is Scott Thorson) doesn't even need to read the post - title hints very clearly that Thorson is a liar!
Here I want to make a little nota bene: I, the author of this blog, have no idea whether Scott Thorson was telling the truth about his fling with MJ. I don't have any substantial proofs to believe in this or that option.
The question of proving is on the vindicatemj author's mind too: "However the main question which is on everyone’s mind is how to prove that Scott Thorson is telling lies about Michael Jackson". Please pay attention: the author isn't interested in finding out whether Thorson is telling the truth or not - no, the author is interested in proving that Thorson lies. Thus the whole blogpost is dedicated to proving that Thorson lied.
"The first part of the interview was about Liberace, but the public was of course interested only in Michael Jackson and held their breath waiting for the second part" - I believe that the mentioned public is actually the fans of MJ though.
The author quotes ET Online site:
http://www.etonline.com/news/121296_Liberace_s_Former_Lover_Details_Secret_Romance/index.html
The comment is as follows: "The text makes it clear that the above is taking place as a sort of a publicity campaign for the forthcoming movie about Liberace. However judging by the ET’s prelude to the story it leaves you with an uneasy feeling that the goal of the program (and movie?) is to eventually mix the names and images of MJ and Liberace together". Really?..
The author goes on discussing when exactly Scott was seduced by Liberace: at age 16 or at age 19. I would omit it, unlike the author I don't see really significant difference between 16 and 19. So, let's move (together with the author) to the second part of Thorson's interview: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance
"Let us not faint at the above" - the author urges. Err, faint?.. Mmkay.
"Scott is extremely cautious in making his allegations (interesting to find out why) and the most he says is that “the relationship crossed the boundaries” adding that this is all he is comfortable saying”"
Now I want to urge people reading this to watch the actual footage: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance/index.html
Scott Thorson admits that he had fling with MJ only because his interviewer pressed him!
"The ET text claims that Thorson detailed the ‘relationship’ with Michael Jackson in his book and this is a flat lie told by Entertainment Tonight for which the ET can and should be directly reprimanded.  Thorson’s book written in 1988 (and not in 1998!) was solely about Liberace and absolutely not about Michael Jackson, not to mention the fact that there was nothing about the alleged ‘gay’ relationship with Michael there."  Surprise-surprise! Mass media is inaccurate! The author doesn't seem like someone who used to work with mass media, otherwise he (or she) would know that the people who work in mass media are actually... people. Who have plenty things on their minds other than checking what exactly and where exactly was written. Accuracy is not what journalists are known for. That's for sure!
Actually I'm going to show you that the author of the analysed blogpost is a human too. Very human. And not accurate - to say the least...
But let's continue.
"We also learn from the ET that Thorson is planning a new book where he is evidently going to develop his novel ideas about Michael Jackson" - Oh really?.. Evidently?.. OK, life will show.
"It is clear that the ET program is probing the ground to see whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him" - Err, no. It's not clear. Does ET Online co-operates with Thorson on his new book?.. Why? Pay attention at the wording: "whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him". What "things" the author is talking about? That MJ might have had a gay fling?.. So, the author calls it "slandering"? The author is just outright homophobic. Gay sex isn't illegal in US (or in UK for that matter), isn't it? So why "slandering" then? I can imagine a possible opponent telling me: "Because it's not true!" The problem is this possible opponent has to prove first what is true and what is false and to do it using something more substantial than their emotions. Good luck to them!
The author goes on digging into history of Scott Thorson's claims about his fling with MJ. "Thorson’s story is not new. It goes back to 2004 when Michael Jackson was in the midst of his legal battle with the Arvizos and had no time or strength for disputing Scott Thorson’s ideas. His lawyer Steven Cochran angrily called the lies “false trash” and said they would take action but in the avalance that followed the story didn’t get the attention it deserved" - Dear author, your naivety kills me! MJ and his lawyers would be total idiots in case they gave "the attention it deserved". The deserved attention would create a huge tsunami of scandal around MJ and Thorson which would spiral into hell knows what. (The best way to deal with the situation was to allow the wave to calm down).
"However if you compare today’s story by Thorson with the one voiced back in 2004 you will see a decided difference – at the time, due to MJ’s vulnerability Scott’s allegations of a gay relationship with Michael Jackson were much more salacious while now he and Entertainment Tonight are much more cautious and are somewhat dancing around the theme (which makes you suspect that they are afraid of a lawsuit)" - Let's watch the video one more time. Christina McLarty was the one who was quite persistent asking Scott about the nature of his relationship with Michael. Thorson was definitely evasive, feeling uneasy about answering her questions... Does it look like he wanted to talk about his fling/whatever with MJ?.. It doesn't look so. It doesn't look "cautious" too, more like uneasy. Why uneasy?.. It's a different question. We may speculate about it, but a lawsuit... well, what laws did Thorson break here?.. I'm not a specialist in US law but I'm afraid no one would be able to sue the guy.
"The typical media report about Thorson’s story claimed that Scott had a gay affair with MJ and that this would be the crucial revelation for the child molestation case. This way the papers gave away the Prosecutors’ intentions to use the alleged MJ’s homosexuality as a bridge to paedophilia and a way to prove him to be a “boy abuser” " - The problems is the prosecution didn't do that though there were some circumstantial evidence of "the alleged MJ’s homosexuality". There are plenty of scientific and pseudo scientific discussions going on about how homosexuality and paedophilia are linked - I have no desire to go in-depth, but I'm quite sure that in case prosecution would try to prove that MJ was involved in homosexual acts with adult men the defence would provide plenty of experts who would argue about homosexuality and paedophilia to the point of exhaustion. Besides let's admit it: Scott Thorson doesn't have a reputation of a person who you're going to believe immediately.
Then the author continues making observation that there were different scandalous stories about MJ at the time the National Enquirer material with Thorson revelations appeared. The author's reasoning makes you think about some sort of a global mass media conspiracy against Michael Jackson. The reality is... The author apparently doesn't read newspapers and watch TV (or maybe he/she reads/watches only something about MJ). Otherwise he or she would know that in case something scandalous of a magnitude of MJ's trial takes place mass media makes everything possible to add fuel to the fire. That's not about Michael Jackson - that's about mass media!
Let's move to a funniest part of the vindicatemj blogpost. The author decided to analyse the National Enquirer 2004 article. (Of course the author never read the the article itself . Unfortunately I didn't save it when it was available online - but who knew?..).
"The story told by the National Enquirer was horrendous" - Horrendous?.. Really? Did the author ever had sex him/herself?..
Here is an article the author refers to:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-04-15/gossip/18259018_1_scott-thorson-hugh-hefner-liberace "Michael “motioned him over to the bed”? He “made the first move”? He “begged Scott to leave Liberace”? And Scott said “No” to him??  Despite the fact that his love affair with Liberace was drawing to an end???" - I suspect that if the story is true Thorson probably used to kick himself for not yielding to MJ's beggings. Very soon MJ released "Thriller", meanwhile Liberace kicked Scott out. But how the author could know that Thorson knew at the time that his elderly lover is going to kick him out?..
The next quotation is epic: "Michael, that innocent little dove who even in the 90s made rounds of people’s homes with the Jehovah’s Witnesses books in his hands to preach the Gospel?" Innocent little WHO?.. And wtf the dove was doing in the 90s going door to door if he left Jehovah's Witnesses for good by the end of 80-s??? BTW can we call this slander because this information is obviously false?
"And does Scott Thorson remember what Michael was like during that period of time? Could that shy and timid guy confidently “motion” anyone to himself? Is he describing someone street smart or the painfully shy young man Michael actually was?" - How in hell the author would know what MJ was like during that period of time? This pseudo psychology is just ridiculous.
"We do not expect these liars  to tell us the truth, but why can’t these people report even their lies correctly?" - I'm afraid for the very same reason why the dove used to distribute Jehovah's Witnesses literature in the 90-s.
"today’s story from the same Scott Thorson sounds much more reserved as he is simply afraid to repeat it the way it was told back in 2004" - Probably he is afraid of manic fans... It's a real possibility.
The author goes on discussing once again why Tom Sneddon wasn't interested in Thorson as a witness despite the fact that according to National Enquirer Scott saw porn magazines with young boys (btw how young?..) in MJ's possession and whether it is possible to deceive a polygraph. There is a lot of homemade psychology too: "Scott Thorson was most sophisticated in matters of sex while Michael was shy, “prissy, proper and prim” (according to Kit Culkin) and would blush at any question about sex or mere profanity as a “Victorian old maid”" - For some reason prissy, proper and prim girls people have sex too. I observed a couple of examples first hand.
"He [Kit Culkin] also said that Michael was an absolute “scaredy-cat” or excessively fearful as the dictionary puts it  - and this makes the story about him being so bold in a stranger’s home as to make passes at Scott look highly dubious to me" - Umm... Fear of being caught actually could turn on, besides MJ used to be bold not even in strangers' houses, but also in some public places...
"Thorson at the time was a sophisticated and street smart guy with more than 4 years of homosexual love behind his back while Michael Jackson was still a baby and a “Victorian maid” who made rounds of other people’s houses as a devout Jehovah’s Witness preaching God and the way of life according to the Bible" - I love expression 4 years of homosexual love behind his back. Baby Michael at the time had more than a decade in show business behind his back - show business in 70-s, with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll in it's full bloom. I suspect he wasn't as naive as the author tries so hard to portray him. Besides perhaps a naive boy might be fascinated by a street smart guy like Thorson.
The author cites quite a well-known among fans rebuttal posted originally on a National Enquirer board by... well, by an anonymous. Supposedly someone who knew MJ in person.
Here is this message:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history,  you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances.
Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely  comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried  his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he  does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly  uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to  Scott.
 Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The  second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite  language, of course...Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent  back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get  punched in the face).
They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever  got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993?  Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with  “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with  all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?

The serious problem of this message is that ANYONE could write it. Yeah, including a fan who NEVER even met MJ in person!
The author goes on with their analysis trying to figure out when MJ's trysts with Scott supposedly took place. It takes the author plenty of paragraphs to figure out at last that MJ was really in London at the same time as Liberace and Thorson. The author apparently doesn't know how to use google. Just google Liberace and lord Montagu and you'll stumble upon several links mentioning MJ as well. Here is a picture: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/958444/?type=display (unfortunately it's too little, perhaps there are bigger copies somewhere in the web). Here we can see Lord Montagu, Liberace next to him, Scott Thorson on the back seat and do you recognise that guy in a fur coat?.. yeah, it's Michael Jackson! http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4462266.The_way_you_made_us_feel___an_appreciation_of_Michael_Jackson/?ref=rss
There is even footage of all four of them in this car somewhere on youtube (I'm too lazy to find it now).
"Frankly, the timeline did not convince me that Thorson could see Michael Jackson in London in the summer of 1981" - the author tells us. Would the pictures convince him/her?.. The picture of MJ, Thorson, Liberace and lord Montagu in the car was even shown during Thorson's interview to ET Online.
"How could he if Michael was there in May-September 1981 while Thorson was busy with his cocaine/murder/witness event at about the same period of time?" - Oh, Scott even didn't have time for two shags?.. It doesn't take too much time normally.
An interesting part of the blogpost to me personally was quoting of Roger Jacobs story that I referred to in my previous blogpost. I wonder whether the author managed to find it him/herself or just read my blogpost? (I tend to believe the second option since the author even wasn't able to find out whether Thorson and MJ met in London in 1981).
"Truth is the only goal worth paying, working and living for" - the author tells us. I'm impressed!
"The only thing which I don’t like about his story is that he claims that Thorson passed several polygraph tests" - ugh... So, "Roger Jacobs is a serious journalist – you can tell it by the manner of his writing", you are an ardent champion of truth, but you don't like several polygraph tests statement?.. So, does it mean that the author doesn't believe "a serious journalist" on this matter but for some reason he or she believes all other things that Jacobs has to say or does it mean that the author actually doesn't like the truth?..
It's called "twisted mind" I think.
I want to return to what I began with: facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Above is an example of how a fan is trying to make a myth. My goal is to try to separate myths from the reality. It doesn't matter who makes those myths: fans, journalists, haters... Inaccuracies, distortions and agendas - that's what historians always have to deal with.

Update: It seems impossible now to find messages posted on National Enquirer site in 2004. But this is supposedly a full text of message left by... errr, I don't know who. It's much longer than the text quoted on vinicatemj blog. Here it is:

Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
Please.
Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.
There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.
Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.

So, here we have a lot of different information, though it is still unknown who is the author. The most interesting part that speaks for itself is in bold. The third child is Blanket, his mother... According to MJ himself it was a surrogate who had a baby for him...
Yeah, nice rebuttal.

More About Scott Thorson And Michael Jackson

My yesterday short post became surprisingly popular, so I decided to make a slightly longer post about Scott Thorson. For those who doesn't know - Scott is a guy who used to be boyfriend/plaything of a pianist and entertainer Liberace, very popular back in the day in US. You can find plenty of information about their liaison in the web. Scott Thorson even wrote a book about Liberace (interesting reading I believe). In 2004 National Enquirer posted an article where Scott Thorson alleged that he also had a fling with Michael Jackson. Unfortunately I can't find the full article online anymore, but those interested can read this: http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biot1/thorson01.html.
Scott seems to be a very intersting person who always loved to stick his nose (and other parts of his body) into other people's affairs, suspicious substances, etc.
Nowadays Steven Soderbergh is going to make a movie about Liberace and Scott based on Scott's book Behind  the Candelabra (with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon). That's why perhaps Entertainment Tonight invited Thorson for an interview. In this interview Thorson admitted (quite evasively) that his relationship with Michael Jackson crossed the boundaries of friendship.
One may believe or disbelieve the man... I just would like to share a link with my readers: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/93764-depression-2.0-sunday-in-kerouac-alley
Just more information for reflection.

One More Mystery of Michael Jackson

Friends of Paris - or more likely shrewd relatives of those friends - decided to make some bucks and want to sell a recording of videochat with Paris Jackson and those friends according to TMZ. Actually TMZ got extremely old news - Paris used to say that MJ posthumous album is fake (part fake) more than a year ago and even I was aware of it.
Are some songs fake or not?..
Big shrug.
I can tell who looks like who, but I don't have ear for music... Though when I heard one song from that album I thought (I didn't know it was supposed to be MJ) that someone is trying to sound like Michael Jackson too hard.
Big shrug once more time.

Reading Too Much Into Things

Paris Jackson congratulated her brother Prince with his 15-th birthday (15 y.o.?!. OMG! Never tell anyone that I remember quite vividly time when he was born!) She wrote: Happy Birthday to my almost-twin-brother, Prince!!
Almost-twin-brother?.. Paris, I hope it doesn't mean that you missed a chance to be a year older.

My Friend Michael - Frank Cascio's Version

Michael Jackson's death provoked a new huge wave of interest to his incredible person. Following this wave a lot of people started to write books about him - researchers, relatives, friends, etc.
Recently I completed reading of Frank Cascio's book "My Friend Michael".
I'm extremely bad in writing reviews. When I started writing this post I realised that actually I need to re-read the book!
Then I decided that this post will be not a review, but a list of things that I found interesting and worth mentioning.
Frank Cascio himself puts a huge red flag in the very beginning of his memoir:
From a very young age, I trained myself not to talk freely. I kept everything inside and suppressed most of my reactions and emotions. I was never one hundred percent open or free. That’s not to say I lied—except, I’ll admit, when I was working for Michael and told people I’d just met that I was a door-to-door Tupperware salesman and that I was very proud of the plastic we manufactured. Or that my family was from Switzerland and was in the chocolate business. With my close friends and family, I never lied, but when it came to my experiences with Michael, I chose every word I said carefully. Michael was a private person, and so am I. I didn’t want to call attention to myself or to have people look at me differently because of my connection to Michael, and I certainly didn’t want to be the source of any gossip about him. There was plenty of that already. Speaking is revealing. It’s still hard for me to talk freely: I always think, and think again, before speaking.

To me as a reader this was a warning: don't take everything written in the book as a gospel truth. Some things were probably omitted. Some things were probably softened. Etc.
Truth, nothing but the truth apparently is not a motto of most of those who were around Michael Jackson.
Frank Cascio got acquainted with MJ at a very young age through his father whom MJ befriended in the middle of 80-s. Since then MJ became a family friend of Cascios, someone who will spend holidays with the family and even live in their house for a while.
At age 12 or 13 Frank Cascio and his younger brother even spent several months with Michael
on his 'Dangerous' tour (it is peculiar that it happened after MJ was accused of being a child molester by Chandlers). MJ gave them a chance to see the huge world and became a surrogate father to both brothers, helping them doing their homework and taking care of them.
Before the tour Frank and his family visited Neverland and even got acquainted with Jordan Chandler who he describes as an ordinary boy. According to Frank Cascio Jordan complained that his father Evan was jealous of Michael and that MJ's relationship with Jordy and the rest of his family was a problem for Evan.
Throughout the book Frank Cascio strongly denies any wrongdoings on MJ's part which could be considered "molestation".
Frank and his brother Eddie were with Michael when he cancelled his 'Dangerous' tour and went to rehab.
at night, a doctor always came in right before he went to sleep to give him what he called “medicine.” I was a kid. All I knew was that the doctor gave him this medicine to help him fall asleep. Only later would I learn that it was Demerol.
Frank never identifies the doctor (in case he himself knew his name).
At the time Frank Cascio was too young and inexperienced to understand influence of drugs on MJ, though there were a couple of episodes when Michael's behaviour was strange - perhaps aftereffects of Demerol.
Later Frank had a chance to develop a pretty good idea of when he was on something and when he wasn’t.
But according to Frank the main reason MJ cancelled his tour was not his drug addiction:
In later years, Michael would explain to me that the cancellation of the tour had had nothing to do with drug addiction. It was because his next tour date was in Puerto Rico, on American soil, and if he had entered the United States at this time, there was a very real chance that he would have been arrested on the allegations of child molestation. ... The only way to guarantee that the part of the tour that was cancelled would be covered by insurance would be if Michael opted out because of a medical problem.
(But Michael really went to a rehab).
Frank also explains why MJ settled with the Chandlers (though he doesn't go into much details, but I believe he simply doesn't know those details too well).
The fact was that Michael was a money machine, and nobody wanted him to stop being one. If he took time off from his career for a two-to three-year trial, he would stop producing the billions of dollars worldwide that made him an industry. Because the legal fees of a trial would cost far more than any settlement, his insurance company, who would bear those losses, was determined to settle.
The settlement was finalised before MJ returned to U.S. according to Frank, as far as I know it was signed soon after MJ had to undergo the infamous strip search.
None of Cascios knew that MJ married Lisa Marie Presley. Michael told them that he got married for business reasons:
At the time, he was doing business with Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who was known as “the Arabian Warren Buffett.” They were business partners in a newly formed company called Kingdom Entertainment. According to Michael, the prince and his colleagues liked to do business with family men, and so he wanted Michael, as his partner, to be married. Especially after the allegations in 1993. The prince was investing a lot of money in Kingdom Entertainment, and he believed that by marrying, Michael would restore his tarnished image.

So basically he confirms that MJ married Lisa Marie mostly for image purposes (well, that was MJ's explanation. Why does a marriage needs an explanation at all?..).
However Michael informed Frank about his future fatherhood before all the world learnt about it.  But he gave the same explanation for marrying Debbie Rowe as he gave for his marriage with Lisa Marie:
Once again he told me that the powerful Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal had influenced his decision. When the prince found out that Michael was going to have a child, he wanted him to be married. Michael didn’t want to jeopardize his working relationship with bin Talal, so he married Debbie. Or so his story went.

According to Frank: There was no romance or intimacy between them, but Michael truly loved Debbie as a friend.
When Frank was about 18 Michael offered him to become his personal assistant, it included a lot of random things to do.
Frank became a witness of an accident that happened during a concert in Munich, when a bridge on which MJ was singing "Earth Song" fall instead of slowly coming down, and Michael's back was injured. It caused chronic pain in his back which led to abusing of painkillers. It was the first time that Frank Cascio witnessed MJ about to receive propofol (he realised it only much later). At least it was his assumption.
Michael felt a little bit of jealousy towards Grace Rwaramba, nanny of his kids.
Frank wrote that once he and Michael went to a kosher Chinese restaurant.
I couldn't even imagine that there could be such restaurants!..
Frank  mentions 3 women who (possibly) had some kind of a romantic relationship/interaction with MJ: a fan who MJ kissed in a car, a friend who spent an hour in MJ's bedroom (and MJ went out of bedroom with unbuttoned pants) and a woman who Frank named Emily who was hanging in Neverland for about a year, though Frank was unable to say for sure what was the true nature of their relationship:
The question as to whether Michael was intimate with Debbie Rowe came up often. People seemed to think that they could make sense of Michael if they could only unravel the mystery of his relationships with women, but Michael was his own man. There were no simple answers. I know he was sexually intimate with Lisa Marie when they were together—he told me so. With Emily, to be honest, I’m not sure, but I know in her he found a companion, a friend.

To be continued.

Conrad Murray Trial

I can tell what's going on in court by google requests that refer to my blog!

Why Do I Believe Jason Pfeiffer

How many people on Earth believe that Jason Pfeiffer was a boyfriend of Michael Jackson? Umm... I'm afraid their number is under one hundred. (Well, of course most people couldn't care less!) And yes, I'm among this minority.
Why do I find Jason Pfeiffer to be believable?
No, not because I find it cool to be in the minority and to feel like an initiate. And not just because Jason Pfeiffer is a great guy. And not even because I always thought that MJ was as gay as they come.
The first time I heard about Jason Pfeiffer's existence was about two years ago, when Australian magazine "Woman's Day" published this article and some other news outlets published similar stories. According to the comments most people didn't believe it. For different reasons - either they thought that Jason Pfeiffer was too old, weighted too much or simply was of a wrong gender.
Did I pay attention to those articles? "It's so unbelievable that it must be true" - I told myself. And I started to make research. First of all I found out that Jason Pfeiffer was a real person (yeah, lol!) and he really worked for Arnold Klein. I was paying quite close attention to Dr. Klein at the time because of rumors of him being a biological father of MJ's children. I read his twitter, and one day Klein gave a link to Jason's twitter referring to him as "a very good friend" of MJ. I started to read Jason's twits as well, though there were just a few.
There were not a lot of events until late April of the next year. As I learnt later in October of the previous year journalist Alicia Jacobs made two interviews - one with Jason Pfeiffer, the other one - with his boss Arnold Klein. Several months later Alicia Jacobs sold those interviews to Extra TV. They were edited to death and were meant to be shown in two parts. First part was really shown, the second part was never aired - for an unknown reason. (Alicia Jacobs later put to her blog a little bit more extended version than the one which is on the site of Extra, but it doesn't exist anymore unfortunately. There was a cameo of Dr. Klein in it. I'll return to it later). TMZ and Arnie added fuel to the fire several days later.
Fans were desperate! "Fat lying bastards" were the nicest epithets applied to Pfeiffer and Klein. Weirdest gossips started to circulate on fan boards: for example that Klein and Pfeiffer were lovers and MJ found them together doing something inappropriate in his bathroom. And much more. Fans hate when people tell weird and disrespectful things about Michael Jackson, but they do exactly the same to other people. Well, I was reading it, laughing in front of my computer and slowly continuing my research.
Right before the Extra piece was to be aired Jason Pfeiffer deleted his twitter account - not to be bombarded with hateful comments I believe. Later I found Jason's facebook account and tried to add him as a friend. To my surprise Jason added me. What was the first thing I started to do? Of course I started to read Jason's wall. And I found out that his friends were presenting their condolences to Jason right after MJ's passing. (Two months before the story about MJ and Jason being boyfriends first broke). Would people present their condolences to a person in case one of the clients of this person's boss would die?.. More than doubtfully. I will not quote anything here - I find it not ethical. But my doubts were almost completely dismissed.
After the Extra scandal broke a guy named Paul Camuso who had a twitter account and was followed by both Jason Pfeiffer and Arnold Klein started to defend them and even decided to make a non-edited interview with Jason. This interview was never put on Youtube, but later Paul Camuso mentioned on his twitter that there is a site where one can read transcript of the original interview that Alicia Jacobs made with Jason Pfeiffer. I was looking for it desperately but couldn't find until someone in the vast ocean of Internet mentioned the title of the site. Finally I found it - http://thetruthaboutmichael.com/. (Later I learnt that it was made by Paul Camuso and Arnold Klein, but I had no idea at the time). You can still find full transcript of the interview that Jason Pfeiffer gave to Alicia Jacobs. At the time there was also another transcript - interview that Dr. Arnold Klein gave to his friend Alicia on the same occasion (and it makes you wonder why it was deleted later, doesn't it?)
Meanwhile Jason Pfeiffer deleted (suspended) his facebook account - I had no idea why.
I started this blog about the same time.
Nothing really interesting was going on until the spring. I learnt that Arnie Klein filed for bankruptcy and I couldn't find Jason's name on Klein's clinic site anymore. Transcript of Klein's interview disappeared from thetruthaboutmichael.com. I had no idea what was happening until I saw this note on Arnie's fb:
Michael was not gay
by Arnold W. Klein on Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Michael Jackson's sexuality? I do not believe at this time there is any evidence to indicate that he was gay. Jason Pfeiffer an ex-emloyee of mine together with a lawyer,my ex-accountant and a shady busines man sold the story of Jason's so-called affair with Michael to the foreign press as well as the US media. I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. I apologize to Michael's family for any damage this might have caused. Nevertheless, I feel the accusations of Michael's so called pedophilia forced him to live a tortured life with even his own sister accusing him of this behavior.

Unfortunately I didn't make a screenshot, Klein deleted his post very soon.
It was posted close to 1 of April, but not exactly on 1 of April, so I guess it wasn't supposed to be a joke.
And I wrote this blogpost - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-that-weed-too-it-must-be-good.html.
I had every reason to be ironic in it.
I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. - Arnie wrote.*
Unfortunately I read his interview to Alicia. And I saved it.
This is what Arnie was telling Alicia at the time:

This is the phrase that Arnie said in Extra spot:

When you see two people looking at each other you know what's happening. I was just very happy for both of them.

I saw it and I've heard it on the video Alicia Jacobs put to her blog. And I tend to believe my eyes and my ears.

And now our doctor is telling us that he recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer.
Recently???
Umm, so he saw MJ together with Jason, he was aware about their love affair/fling/whatever, but now he couldn't remember it?..
So, what happened to the absent-minded doctor?
The answer was found on his fb a couple of days later:

The publicity, the embezzlement, the defamation, the whole story

by Arnold Fine on Saturday, April 2, 2011

What is the point here ? The point is Harvey Levin is a totally dishonest human being who knew very well I had no part in the death of Michael Jackson. He knew very well Steven Hoefflin had been reported to be responsible for Michael's addiction. Furthermore, my lawyer, Howard Weitzman, Harvey Levin's closest friend, was fully aware of Hoefflin's behavior. When AEG hired Michael Jackson and Murray as his doctor they enabled an individual totally unfamiliar with the proper administration of this drug to give Mr Jackson Propofol every night. Frank DeLeo was present in Gothenburg Sweden where Hoefflin was giving Michael Propofol. Finally my lawyer Richard Charmley (together with Brad Boyer) illegally released Michael Jackson's medical records in court to get the $55,000 owed to me paid. This was done not to get me paid but to allow Murray to know what I did and keep news reporters at my office and homes.Additionally Charmley had told me that Mr Phillips of AEG wanted to work with me, Within a week I received a full copy of Michael's records sent to me mistakenly by Charmley. Richard Charmley also emailed a copy of these records to Randy Phillips according to individual's at AEG. Furthermore, Charmley was closely involved with Muhammed Khilji, Jason Pfeiffer, in embezzling over 10 million dollars from me. To continue the insane publicity enabled them to keep me away from my office and steal more and more money.Muhammed Khilji is a Pakistani Moslem. These people use a monetary transfer method called Hawala which was used to subsidize 9/11 and Mumbai. This is a terrorist act and the way Muhammed embezzled my funds and forced into bankruptcy. This bankruptcy will not prevent me from practicing but it is beyond my comprehension that both Andrew Whorton and Michael DeGeus of the homeland security division of the Secret Service have not been of any assistance to me in dealing with this situation.

A lot of letters, but the most important thing is that Arnold Klein started to accuse his former employees in embezzling over 10 million dollars.
It's not comme il faut that a guy who I accuse of stealing my money was a boyfriend of my best friend Michael Jackson. No way. So I need to say that the story was fabricated. Paul Camuso, my staunch adorer, will confirm it - Arnie Klein decided. (I have no idea whether Arnold Klein was even doing it consciously. Really. There're people who start to believe in their own fantasies and lies. I suspect that Arnie Klein is one of them).
Of course after reading all of these obvious lies and accusations by Dr. Klein I had a lot of things to think about and I wrote the post that I mentioned already - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-that-weed-too-it-must-be-good.html.
As you may notice I was asking some rhetorical questions in the end  of it. Rhetorical questions are not supposed to be answered... But not these questions.
Several days or even weeks later someone left a comment asking how to contact me. When this person sent me an e-mail I had to pick up my jaw from the floor - it was Jason Pfeiffer himself. Willing to answer my rhetorical questions.
Unfortunately Jason Pfeiffer wasn't able to tell me how to embezzle 10 million dollars. He doesn't know. My bad luck - as always! But he answered a lot of my questions.
Why Jason Pfeiffer contacted me? - I asked myself. Let's assume he really stole several million bucks from his former employer. Why would a fraud contact me to tell he is innocent? I'm not a famous blogger who can influence public opinion, my blog isn't exactly popular - what would a liar gain here? The easiest way to understand a person and their motives is to put yourself in their shoes. It's an old and a banal rule, but it works. If I were a fraud who stole from my ex-boss - would I contact someone who wrote in a blog: "Please tell me how to embezzle money somewhere!"? No. (Later I wrote a blogpost about Stacy Brown where I caught him in a lie - you know he never contacted me to explain it. Dr. Klein didn't contact me too. Well, of course I'm not delusional, I don't expect people who I write about to read my blog!)
Later Jason Pfeiffer decided to make his own blog to express his position in all this mess that he found himself in thanks to Arnie Klein and general homophobia. Actually his blog is mostly dedicated to his former boss - with whom he has litigation going on. He never denied his relationships with Michael Jackson. He is just telling the truth. To be just truthful... It's sooo weird nowadays.
Unfortunately being close to Michael Jackson is a curse - Jason Pfeiffer received fans' hatred in full and even death threats. After Arnie Klein claimed on his fb that MJ was not gay (and apprehensively deleted it later) it was much more wise for Jason to say that Michael was not his boyfriend and that his former boss Dr. Klein forced him to invent this story to gather some publicity for Arnie. And to let the fans to heave a sigh of relief. He didn't. He chose to tell the truth and to be just coherent.

What is my goal in writing of all of this? Do I expect the fans to believe me? No. I'm way too old and too non-delusional to expect something like that. I rather expect to be called a hater like I was called already on a fan board where my blog was mentioned. A hater?.. I find hate to be too strong of a feeling not to be bored with it very soon. Besides who do I hate? Michael Jackson? It can't be further from the truth. Do I want to "out" Michael Jackson? See above. Actually I write this blogpost to give a link to someone who would ask why do I find Jason Pfeiffer believable.

* Side note - the funniest thing that there was really a ghost writer involved. And this ghost writer was none other than Paul Camuso. Relationships nowadays lack romanticism - you know... But romanticism still sells good. And Jason Pfeiffer didn't give me an impression of a person who is eager to talk about his feelings and emotions.

Witnesses And Participants

September is going to be an interesting and busy month. There are at least two trials scheduled for September that will attract heightened interest of yours truly. First of all it is People vs. Conrad Murray - at last! The second one will be an assize that includes relationships between Dr. Arnie Klein and his former assistant Jason Pfeiffer. Perhaps it is not obvious from the first glance to someone who is not acquainted with the situation yet what those two courtroom battles have in common. Though actually they are really intertwined. Both Dr. Klein and Jason Pfeiffer are possible witnesses in People vs. Conrad Murray. Though prosecution seek to exclude them both from the trial. (For some reason Jason Pfeiffer is called Pfiffer in this motion as well as on the list of potential witnesses. Also it's really weird to me that some of the witnesses were not interviewed by defense and prosecution. Their testimonies could be "surprise - surprise" to everybody in case they would have a chance to be witnesses).
In January of 2011 Dr. Arnold Klein filed for bankruptcy. Later he started to claim that his former employees Jason Pfeiffer and Muhammad Khilji stole several millions from him (the numbers were always different - from $3.2 million to $12 million). Then he sued Jason and Muhammad. Jason Pfeiffer (who wanted to sue his former employer back in the winter but was unable to do this due to laws that prohibit to sue a person who filed for bankruptcy - I can be not very correct here because I'm not a U.S. citizen and I know really very little about U.S. laws) filed a counterclaim. It was discussed already in the media by TMZ and even Diane Dimond wrote an article about it. I can add only that history of Jason's employment put in short in the counterclaim contains even more gross and stinky (pun intended) facts about Dr. Klein. Personally I feel that I know already too much about Arnie.
Perhaps mass media wouldn't pay too much (if any) attention to Jason's counterclaim if Michael Jackson was not mentioned in it. Here we have a close connection between People vs. Conrad Murray and Jason Pfeiffer vs. Arnold Klein (or vice versa, I have no idea how to call it).
I'll quote everything from Jason's counterclaim that is connected with MJ:

21. In or around October 2008, Klein was contacted by Michael Jackson, who told Klein that he (Michael) needed to “get out of a court appearance” and needed a “doctor’s note.” Klein told Michael that Klein would take care of it. Klein then told Pfeiffer that Klein would write a note stating that Michael had MRSA infection (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), and Klein instructed Pfeiffer to get a cotton swab and swab Pfeiffer’s own nose so that Klein could fabricate test results showing that Michael had MRSA. Pfeiffer refused, telling Klein this was not ethical, so Klein swabbed Klein’s own nose instead. Klein then asked Pfeiffer to compose a letter to the courts in London stating that Michael Jackson was too sick to travel due to having MRSA infection. Pfeiffer refused to do this. Klein was upset with Pfeiffer but found another employee to write the court letter for Michael Jackson.
22. Throughout 2009, Michael Jackson was a frequent patient of Klein. Several times, Klein told Pfeiffer to help Michael down to the car because Michael was too drugged up and disoriented to stand on his own. Pfeiffer told Klein repeatedly that Pfeiffer was uncomfortable doing this, but Pfeiffer did help Michael each time asked, out of concern for Michael’s safety. Pfeiffer told Klein many times that although Pfeiffer is not a doctor, Pfeiffer and Klein’s own nurses were worried that Michael was being “overmedicated” by Klein. Klein retorted to Pfeiffer that he, Klein, knew what he was doing and that Pfeiffer should keep his mouth shut.
23. Toward the end of June 2009, Klein told Pfeiffer that Michael Jackson was having trouble sleeping, and Klein said that he was going to prescribe muscle relaxers in Pfeiffer’s name as the patient but that Pfeiffer should pick up the prescription and then arrange for Michael to pick up the medication from Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer refused to comply with this scheme. Michael Jackson called Pfeiffer shortly after this conversation, and Michael asked Pfeiffer to find Michael an anesthesiologist. Pfeiffer told Michael that he, Pfeiffer, couldn’t do that, and advised Michael to call Klein directly. Pfeiffer immediately called Klein and told Klein that he, Pfeiffer, wanted “no part in this.”

That's all.
Michael Jackson is not the only celebrity mentioned in the counterclaim. Arnie also provided a famous actress (whose name is not mentioned) with painkillers that she didn't need and prescribed Cialis to a celebrity architect using Pfeiffer's name. (Btw, personally I find it weird that a person needs a prescription for smth. that makes his penis erect. U.S. laws are strange. End of off-topic).
One may wonder whether information about Klein's unethical and/or illegal medical practice concerning MJ is relevant in the Conrad Murray trial. Personally I have no idea. Demerol that Klein injected MJ with was not present in his system according to the autopsy - and it is not surprising because Michael's last visit to Klein's office was on 22 of June, 2009. He was injected with Restylane and had an "i.m. injection" that means Demerol. Demerol leaves a body quite fast.
It is worth mentioning that according to Wikipedia Demerol "can also interact with a number of other medications, including muscle relaxants, some antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and alcohol". MJ had muscle relaxants prescribed by Arnold Klein found in his house... "Pethidine [Demerol] is also relatively contraindicated for use when a patient is suffering from liver, or kidney disease, has a history of seizures or epilepsy, has an enlarged prostate". According to the autopsy MJ had enlarged prostate. But I'm not a medical expert, besides I have no idea to what extent Dr. Arnold Klein was aware about MJ's state of health.
I don't know whether Conrad Murray is the only person responsible for MJ's death. (Sometimes it seems to me that it was solely MJ's own stupidity and Murray's stupidity, greed and overwhelming irresponsibility, sometimes I'm lashed with a wave of suspiciousness and conspiracy theories). I'm quite sure that Arnold Klein needs to be investigated for his questionable medical practice, but it's a different story (from my point of view).
Probably MJ's entangled relationships with drugs can be discussed during the People vs. Murray trial. Though even in case MJ was heavily drug-addicted (with very healthy liver... Hmmm...) - does it have smth. to do with Murray's irresponsible behavior?.. Conrad Murray can be compared with drug dealers here. Are drug dealers supposed to be criminals in U.S.?..
I really doubt that anyone would ask Jason Pfeiffer about his love story with MJ. It is even less relevant here. If defense is going to push their theory of MJ being suicidal availability of a boyfriend (in addition to three underaged kids to take care of) would be too contradictory.

I'm waiting for decision of judge Pastor to the motion in limine.

P.S. Arnie Klein is banned from testifying - well, I'm not surprised... Judging by Arnie's reaction in his FB he is glad. That's no surprise as well.

Conrad Murray. Part III

It was really frustrating that transcripts of preliminary hearing of People vs Conrad Murray case were banned from internet - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/03/conrad-murray-part-ii.html. I wanted to analyse information that is available already to try to understand what really happened on 25 of June, 2009. The trial is postponed until late September, so now I still have plenty of time to try to aggregate all the available information from preliminary hearings and to make an effort to see the whole picture. Besides I have some free time and a bit of inspiration left, so this is Conrad Murray. Part III.
I have to rely mainly upon TMZ for the timeline, so I really hope that their reporters are not blind, deaf and mentally inadequate. Here we have TMZ coverage of preliminary hearings. I have the same hopes for all other reportes whose information I'm going to use. I will use articles from www.radaronline.com and this site - it's a fan site that gathered information about preliminary hearing as well.
I'll try to put down the timeline. My comments are in bold italics:
6 of April. Dr. Murray began ordering large quantities of Propofol according to Tim Lopez, a pharmacist at Applied Pharmacy Services in Las Vegas. On that date, he ordered 10 single dose vials.
Murray had the drugs sent to his girlfriend's Santa Monica home where he was living.
28 of April. Murray ordered 4 boxes and each of the boxes had 10 100 ml vials.
Later that month, Murray ordered 20 vials of midazolam and 20 vials of lorazepam.
12 of May. Murray ordered 4 boxes of Propofol, along with 2 trays of midazolam.
10 of June. Murray ordered 4 boxes of Propofol, and 2 20ml Propofol. (According to Radaronline the pharmacist of Applied Pharmacy Service in Las Vegas testified that Murray bought 130 vials of popofol at 100 milliliters each and 125 vials of the same anesthetic at 20 milliliters). Mathematics was not my favourite subject at school, that's why I have hard time trying to figure out whether these two sources of information have matching figures.
19 of June.  The singer showed up for a rehearsal at Staples Center seeming "lost" and too weak to perform according to Kenny Ortega, co-director of "This Is It".
20 of June. Ortega was summoned to a meeting at Jackson's mansion with the singer, his manager, the concert promoter and Murray. He said the doctor insisted that Jackson was emotionally and physically strong enough to perform and scolded Ortega for sending Jackson home — something he said he hadn't done. Ortega said MJ had the chills and was not well during the failed rehearsal the day before.

"Dr. Murray told me that this was not my responsibility and asked me to not act like a doctor or psychologist … and leave Michael's health to him," he said.

23 of June. "Two wonderful days of rehearsal" according to Ortega, and MJ was happy and healthy.

24 of June. "Two wonderful days of rehearsal" according to Ortega, and MJ was happy and healthy. This information was corroborated by Karen Faye, MJ's makeup artist, on her Twitter.

Time? Kai Chase, MJ's chief, prepared Tuscan white bean soup for MJ and Murray the night before Jackson died, but when she came to work the next morning the soup was untouched. She found it odd.

25 of June.

Around 10.20 AM. Alberto Alvarez, MJ's security guard, arrived for work.

11:51 AM. Recorded phonecall from Murray to Sade Anding. (Phone records show Murray made or received 11 phone calls over five hours while at the singer's home caring for Jackson. He had three back to back calls lasting 45 minutes exactly up to the time he realized Jackson had stopped breathing. On the stand, a phone company rep said Murray had five texts in those hours  including two in the moments prosecutors believe Jackson had stopped breathing). And here I encountered problems with my timeline! See 12.03.

11.54 AM. Voicemail from Murray to his patient Bob Russell.

12:03 PM. Murray sent a text message to Texas. Who was the recipient?

12.03 PM. Sade Anding - who was in Houston the day MJ died - testified she received a call from Murray at around 12:30 PM. If it is by Houston time, than it has to be 10.30 PM in LA, though perhaps in the reality it was in 12.03. But there is only one call in the phone records from Murray to Sade, and that's at 11:51 AM PT - according to TMZ. The question is when exactly did this call take place? Sade Anding herself might not remember the exact time, but why there are two different times that the sources of information give: 11.51 or 12.03? The time lapse is not that little - about 12 minutes. In a case like this it can matter a lot. Besides if 11.51 is correct how Murray can leave a voicemail for his patient at 11.54? He could have two phones (I don't know whether this information is available or not) and he could text someone while chatting on the other phone with his girlfriend, but I find it to be quite difficult to leave a voicemail simultaneously... Sade says Murray was asking her how she was doing and she started talking about her day.  She spoke for a few minutes (about 5 minutes) and realized Murray wasn't on the phone anymore. Sade then said she heard commotion, as if the phone was in his pocket, and heard "coughing and voices." She said she didn't recognize muffled voice as that of Murray. Who this voice belonged to? Is it possible that it was a housekeeper, the chief, one of MJ's kids or Alvarez? It is really very important here to learn when exactly all these events took place... Sade attempted to call Murray back and texted him, but there were no response.

12.04 PM. Murray sent a text message to Texas. Conrad Murray reminds me of Julius Caesar who had ability to do several things at the same time.

12:13 PM. Michael Amir Williams, MJ's assistant, received a voicemail from Murray. Williams said Murray's VM said, "Where are you? Get here right away, hurry." Hmm, looks like Murray realised that something is wrong with his patient. Though why to call MJ's assistant instead of calling 911?.. To ask what to do? Looks like Murray started to panic already.

Williams then called Alberto Alvarez, MJ's security guard, and asked Alvarez to walk to the front door. I don't know what was going on in Williams' head, but personally I in a situation like that would call back to Murray. And only in case Murray was unavailable I would call Alvarez to go and check what's going on. Williams says he heard Murray's voice in the background, then Alvarez hung up. Did Williams try to call and to find out what was going on? Did he pay serious attention to the incident? Does it matter? I don't know...

12.15 PM. Murray sent a text message. One more text message?.. In a state of panic? Hmmm. Who did he send this message to?

After 12:17 PM. According to this site Alberto Alvarez saw Murray upstairs in the hallway hanging over a railing. (According to Kai Chase and written down by TMZ) after Michael stopped breathing, Dr. Murray came downstairs in a panic and summoned Prince. Kai Chase told the boy: "Something may be wrong with your dad." Is it possible that that is why Murray was in the hallway when Alvarez met him? Why in hell did he summon Prince? Thinking something like MJ would wake up upon hearing Prince' voice? Hmmm... It is worth mentioning that later Murray ordered Alvarez to escort the kids from the bedroom. Alvarez walked into MJ's bedroom and saw Michael laying motionless with his eyes and mouth open. He seemed dead to Alvarez. Alvarez saw the doctor performing CPR with one hand on a bed. According to this site Murray performed CPR on MJ "on the bed with one hand on his back". On who's back?.. In case Alvarez saw MJ with eyes and mouth open he had to lie on his back. MJ's lower body was nude because he had a catheter. Murray told Alvarez Michael had "an allergic reaction," then ordered him to collect a bag of bottles and put them in a bag. Murray then instructed him to remove the IV bag containing a milky-white substance from the IV stand. There was a second IV bag - which contained saline - and Murray told Alvrez to leave it there. After the bottles and bag were collected Murray told him to call 911. Perhaps Alvarez had to call 911 without Murray's orders, but I guess he was in a state of shock or panic himself. I was a witness (and direct participant) of a situation when one man had a stroke. There were a lot of people besides me who witnessed it, but a simple and logical idea of calling paramedics came only to me. Was 4 minutes too much to collect IV bags and stuff and to decide to call paramedics?.. I don't know. 4 minutes is not that short period of time, though if people don't understand the situation and what to do... 

Faheem Muhammad, one of MJ's bodyguards, was also in Michael's room after Murray noticed MJ stopped breathing. Muhammad was sent to Jackson's bedroom by Williams as well. When did Muhammad appeared? MJ didn't appear to be alive to Muhammad too. Murray was on his knees doing compressions on MJ in a panicked state On his knees? Was MJ on the floor already or still on the bed?, when he turned to Faheem and another bodyguard Alvarez I believe and asked, "Does anyone in the room know CPR?"

Alvarez says at one point Jackson's children walked into the room and Paris screamed "daddy" and started to cry before Alvarez escorted them from the bedroom (Murray told him to do it not to allow them seeing their father like that). If Murray went downstairs to call Prince... Did he see Prince? Or asked Kai Chase or someone else to ask Prince to go upstairs? Did Prince (and Paris) go upstairs immediately?.. Where was Blanket?

According to Faheem Prince and Paris were near the room and Paris was on her hands and knees crying.  The nanny took them away. Was it after Alvarez escorted them from the room?

Did Faheem Muhammad witness Murray and Alvarez collecting stuff? Did kids witness it? Did they witness Murray performing CPR on the bed?

12:18 PM. Murray sent a text message. Huh???... What did he do?.. I'm texting all the time, it is quite a time- and effort-consuming process to some degree. Not something I would do in a state of panic unless... it is something really VERY important. Who did Murray send this text message?

12.21 PM.  911 call.

Alvarez said the 911 operator told them to move Jackson to the floor to administer CPR. There, Alvarez said, he did chest compressions while Murray gave the singer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He told Alvarez that he never did it before and that he is doing it because MJ was his friend. If he wasn't his friend (everybody wants to be considered MJ's friends!..) he wouldn't do it?.. Murray put a pulse monitor on MJ shortly before paramedics arrived. 

12.26 PM. Paramedics arrived on the scene. According to the EMT report MJ was on the floor, supine, Conrad Murray was performing CPR on him. There was IV in MJ's left leg. Richard Senneff, an EMT, says Michael was dead when he arrived, and it looked like he had been dead for a long time before Dr. Conrad Murray called 911. Seneff said he soon found Jackson's legs were cold and an EKG was mostly flat. MJ's open eyes dried out, and his hands and feet were turning blue. Senneff says he believes Murray must have waited at least 20 minutes (or even up to an hour) before calling 911. That means that MJ was already dead either on 12.06 when Murray was chatting with Sade Anding and texting to Texas simultaneously or even earlier, say at 11.20. And he wasn't noticing that something was wrong with his patient... The question is when did Murray notice that MJ was breathless? Was it between 12.04 and 12.13? It seems quite obvious, in case Murray noticed it earlier he could collect things without participation of Alvarez. But we have a little "but" here: Alvarez did not tell the police about collecting of IV bags right after MJ's passing... It is very possible that he didn't pay attention to it at the time and simply forgot about it... But it is really interesting whether someone would corroborate his testimony. Though there were a lot of evidences left in the house in any case. Besides all the drugs were in MJ's system - it is stupid to deny the obvious (or I do not understand something!) Martin Blount, another paramedic, said when he walked into MJ's room Murray was sweating profusely. Blount says Murray told EMTs he waited only one minute before calling 911. He said he saw Murray take three bottles of lidocaine from the floor and put them in a bag. When Senneff asked Murray if MJ had been taking meds, Murray told him only about lorazepam (Ativan). Murray also told Senneff Jackson had been "dehydrated." Dr. Murray claimed to feel a pulse and, as the senior medical person on scene, refused to pronounce MJ dead. Blount also said at one point Murray produced a hypodermic needle and wanted to use it on Jackson but paramedics refused. Also he suggested paramedics attempt a central line and magnesium. Senneff refused because he wasn't trained to perform the procedure and they didn't have magnesium. Martin Blount placed an endotrachial tube in MJ, but felt based on the temperature of his body he was already deceased. Three attempts were made to access a vein in MJ's hands and arms for an additional IV as the one placed by Murray for dehydration wasn't functioning properly. That is curiously. When did Murray place this IV to MJ's leg? Was it after he realised that MJ was breathless and probably dead? Did anyone witness it? Or was it the same IV that was used for adminestering propofol? Why it was not functioning properly? 

12:53 PM. Murray sent a text message. Once more??? To who?

1.00 PM. Vital signs were recorded.

Murray ordered the EMTs to take MJ to the hospital. I've read a theory somewhere that Murray insisted  on taking MJ to the hospital because otherwise his house would be a scene of death, sealed etc. Did he expect to return back and to destroy evidences? I have too little information to have an opinion on this theory. 

Williams arrived at the house when the ambulance was already there and helped put the children in a car to follow the ambulance.

1.07 PM. Paramedics left the house (with MJ). I want to note that paramedics spent about 40 minutes in the house.

1:08 PM. Phonecall from Murray to Nicole Alvarez from inside the ambulance. She was not asked about this call during preliminary hearing.

1.11 PM. 1 mg. of epinephrine was used by paramedics to restart MJ's heart. Negative result.

1.11 PM. Vital signs were recorded. Before or after epinephrine usage?

1.12 PM. Atropine was administered by paramedics. Negative result.

1.13 PM. 50 ccs of sodium bicarbonate was administered by paramedics to help restore alkalinity to the blood.

1.13 PM. Arriving to the hospital Rec. Facility - I guess it means hospital

Dr. Richelle Cooper testified when Jackson arrived at UCLA there was "no signs of life."

Cooper says Murray admitted giving Michael lorazepam, but made no mention of Propofol. Dr. Thao Nguyen also said that Dr. Murray denied giving Michael any sedatives or narcotics, other than the lorazepam.

Once at UCLA, Senneff said Murray was "spinning ... moving around, nervous, sweating, multitasking." Not surprising at all!

At the hospital Williams was in the room when the Jackson kids were told their father had died. Murray approached Williams and said Michael had some cream in his room that Murray knew MJ wouldn't want the world to know about. He wanted someone to give him a ride back to MJ's house to retrieve it. Williams told Murray he didn’t have a key to the house when in fact he did. He says he called the house and ordered that it be put on lock down and not to let anyone in. Wise! I wonder who was in the house in the morning of 25 of June?

After Michael was pronounced dead at UCLA, Dr. Murray told Faheem he was hungry and wanted to leave. Oh yeah, your extremely famous patient just died - it's time to eat! Murray seems to be a very healthy guy... Faheem said he told Murray to eat at the hospital, but Murray left. Faheem admitted though that Murray spoke with MJ's family and police before leaving.

Evening. Search of the bedroom where MJ died. As far as I understood it was not considered a crime scene yet.

27 of June. LAPD Robbery Homicide Detective Orlando Martinez conducted interview with Dr. Murray. Murray told him the night before Jackson died he was having trouble sleeping.  Murray said he was trying to ween Jackson off of Propofol - a drug he was giving MJ almost every night for two months. Jackson was begging for Propofol.  Murray claims he gave him a reduced dose, with Michael's help.  Murray said MJ liked to "push in the Propofol himself and that other doctors let him do it." Doesn't make too much sense to me. Arnold Klein stated once on his Twitter that MJ was needlephobic. I have no idea whether it is true or not, but a really needlephobic person certainly wouldn't like to push something in their veins! Besides propofol is a remedy known for it's rapid onset, so I'm not sure that a person would be able to inject enough propofol into themself before crashing out. Murray went to the bathroom for 2 minutes, came back and claims he saw MJ wasn't breathing.

29 of June. Search of the bedroom.

Elissa Fleak, an investigator for the L.A. County Coroner's Office, testified her office found 12 bottles of Propofol in Michael Jackson's home. She says two bottles were in the bedroom where MJ died, and the other 10 were in a nearby closet. One of the Propofol bottles found in the room by the nightstand was empty. Does it mean that all other bottles contained Propofol? Also investigators found lorazepam, diazepam, temazepam, trazodone, flomax, clonazepam, tizanidine, hydrocodone, lidocaine and benoquin. As well as used syringes and needles, a box of unopened hypodermic needles, IV catheters and vials.

When I decided to combine the all above information I had two goals: first of all, I wanted to figure out what was a chain of events which took place on 25 of June, 2009. There were some events before and after that, but I didn't pay too much attention to it since I was mostly using information that became available after preliminary hearings. There are a lot of other interesting information available, but it needs much more careful checking and analisys. Besides it is impossible to embrace the unembracable, that's why I decided to stop at one point. After putting all the events together in chronological order the picture became much more clear to me, though there are still some holes and questions. The second goal that I had in mind was to understand - or at least to form more defined opinion about whether Dr. Conrad Murray was just a greedy idiot or there is something more sinister behind the facade. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I believe in human stupidity much more than I believe in conspiracies, but I like to take all the opportunities into consideration. What is my opinion now?.. Well, Conrad Murray and his behaviour on 25 of June fit into a frame of human stupidity and even more human confusion quite well.

But I still have questions to ask!