Michael Jackson RIP

[TheWendybird]

Whoa Andrew.  I am sure I will be disliked for speaking up, but Michael Jackson cetainly tarniished Perter Pan and Neverland.  I will agree he fought growing up and had Captain Hook as a father.  Taking my view from the inner circle, Michael was NEVER seriously considered for the role of Peter Pan.  The 2 cases brought against Michael on child molestation still cast a questionable light on him, the extreme behaviour, sleeping with young boys, the drugs, the decline of Neverland Ranch.  Michael was more like the film The Lost Boys than Peter Pan. 

One can only hope that in time his connection with Peter Pan will be forgotten. 

The media are a nasty bunch I wouldn't keep jumping on that bandwagon personally. There has never been any proof whatsoever as to him molesting anyone. The first boy didn't even draw him circumsized (sp?) which apparently he was. He was aquitted at the second trial. Many children have spoken out saying nothing ever happened. Typically pedophiles don't only go after one or two people...it tends to be a compulsion. One person after another has stated nothing ever happened. I've also heard Michael say he would sleep on the floor and the children in the bed. And it wasn't only boys but girls as well. One interview I saw someone mentioned pictures..just normal pictures not nude..of boys were found..and he was quick to point out there were girls as well. The media will tell you what they want and it's not always truthful. They love to cause juicy gossip good for you for falling for it. Also his houses were searched up and down and nothing was ever found to prove that he was a pedophile at all.

As for the drugs...first off..yes...drugs = bad but we all have problems...his were caused by an accident on the pepsi commercial in the 80's that burned off all his hair...starting an obsession with plastic surgery and an addiction to pain killers..and believe me..it is an easy thing to get addicted to. I've never been addicted to it but I've never taken anything powerful either. He was also on many benzodiazipines...I am on one called Clonazapam for anxiety disorder...he had a lot of trauma in his life that i'm sure contibuted to that as well as sleeping problems. In the end he had crappy doctors. And in the end I think you need to step back and look at what caused some people to get these problems in the first place. Not everyone who has a drug addiction had it because they just wanted a high. I think Michael had a lot of physical and emotional pain in his life and I think it's kind of an unfair judgement to make of him. Same on the molestation charges.

I'm not a christian or anything but honestly..let he who has no sin cast the first stone. We all have problems and I feel sorry for Michael's because I'm sure it wasn't about the high. I'm sure it was about covering up the pain..physical and emotional underneath. He was a kind and giving soul and I hope he's in the real Neverland now.

That's all I have to say on the topic. The instant belief in modern media actually telling the truth about this stuff on your part is enough for me to not talk about this anymore. They're rabid dogs and that's all I can say about them.

[smiles]

One connection I see between Barrie and Jackson is that both were decietful in gaining 'ownership' of children. How on Earth Michael Jackson has been allowed to claim legal parentage of 'his' children I just don't know, anyone with a pair of eyes can see it.

[andrew]

I don't believe for a minute that Barrie was intentionally "deceitful" in gaining "ownership" of the Davies boys. As I said in my book - and Nico agreed - I'm sure enough that the mistranscription of Sylvia's (2nd) Will was accidental when he replaced "Jenny" with "Jimmy" - why else would he have preserved Sylvia's original, with his own note that "this was written by Mrs Davies on her death bed"?  He hardly needed to falsify this sentence in any event since in the next paragraph Sylvia writes, "I would like Mama and J.M.B and Guy [du Maurier] and Crompton [Llewelyn Davies] to be trustees and guardians to the boys..."  The originals can be viewed in the database - just search for "sylvia will" ...

[TheWendybird]

I knew this would open a can of worms, but I can't believe someone quoted the casting of stones.  I am not casting stones.  But get your facts straight.  In the Entertainment world, we here in Los Angeles, see and hear more than the general public.  Where there is sm9oke there is usually fire.  You do not pay out millions if you are innocent.  You clear your name so things do not keep repeating.  What is covered up does not remain so for long here.  Not all of us are role models for children.  That is where I have a problem with putting Michael Jackson up so high.  It is not a matter of who has sinned and who has not.  I don't feel you can really say someone is kind and giving unless you personally know them.  Often people give to make up for sins or hide them.  Michael Jackson wore many masks.

Hey I'm not literally talking about sin just so you know. But I'm making my point that NO ONE is perfect. That's all. I'm sure you've done things in your life you wouldn't be proud of either. As for being in the area where this stuff is happening....I live in a city off the east coast of canada and I will tell you that it doesn't matter where you are..gossip and lies happen including out there...I've had things said about me within my own family by my estranged father that the family believes even though they know me and know it's not true. So why should I believe ANYONE knows who Michael really was is my point? All we can do is go by what we know and what I do know is he was under a lot of stress and his LEGAL COUNCIL advised him to pay it off and get them out of his hair. IMO I don't think parents would just accept money without him also admitting to the crime. I know many catholic priests have paid people for their emotional damages but they were also found guilty or admitted to it to my recollection. I personally know I wouldn't be able to handle the stress and if the benzodiazipines he was on say anything I think he might have had anxiety problems. And don't start with people with anxiety can't be performers because many people are including myself. Theatre and music can be therapuetic. Anxiety can also be a big cause of insomnia.

People have many reasons why they settle out of court...bottom line they found NOTHING. And I will quote him on that "Nothing, Nothing Nothing nothing NOTHING". In fact the only porn that they found (not that porn is good either IMO) was of WOMEN.

Let me ask you..did YOU know him personally? Cause if not you have no right to judge him on the opposite end of the spectrum that I do either. But I'm looking for the best in people but I'm also not blind. It's not like the second time he was brought in about this stuff I didn't get disheartened and wonder if he was guilty...everyone WONDERS. But I just don't see any evidence to support it. Even the footage Martin Bashir took for "Living With Michael Jackson" can attest to something. I doubt he faked all that time. He was there too long following him around. He could have used what ever he wanted. And if you saw the footage Michael's camera's caught that Bashir edited out you'd know he left out all the great things he was saying to him about how he is with the children. Bashir was a snake just like the rest of the media.

Believe me I am not a "brainwashed fan" I really do look at everything. And when it comes down to it...what Michael himself said is true...and the court papers which can be found different places online....show it. There was NOTHING. Now leave the man alone and let him RIP. To me he was no different than Barrie in this respect and I agree with Andrew I don't think Barrie did anything deceitful either. I don't think either of them did and I think they're both in the real Neverland now. Although you might think I'm crazy to actually believe in the place ...I don't really care

[TheWendybird]

On a side note I would also like to point out to smiles...in relation to Michael Jackson's children. I'm getting the impression that you don't think they are biologically his. Well let me tell you besides the obvious #1: We can't know that for sure. Personally the two older children I've seen in shorts and what not and they both have his skinny chicken legs I can also see Michael's eyes in his two boys. I don't care what people say about the eldest being blond...many people turn darker later on..that being said there are freak times when the recessive genes actually take over. Sometimes due to a parent having blond hair or blue eyes or even a grandparent..it happens. So don't get tell me they're not his because of hair color or eye color. The youngest totally looks like his for sure as well.

But my main point I wanted to make was #2....he didn't get these children in any diabolical way. Even IF they were not biologically his. Do people not adopt anymore? Yes they do. If someone chose to be a surrogate and give him children that's their perogitive and there is nothing wrong with it. For all you know Michael was impotent or had low sperm count. We'll never know. If a close friend wanted to do that for him I see nothing wrong with it. And personally from what I've seen he seemed like an awesome daddy and a lot of people will vouche for that who knew him and that's not just his family. Even Martin Bashir thought he was. And like I said he equals a snake.

Someone's father is not simply their DNA dad...it's the person who raised them. My dad isn't anything more than a DNA strand to me. I consider my grandfather to be my real father in the end.

So what shady stuff you are talking about I don't know.

[Taylor]

I just read your reply on Jackson's children.  I agree a father is more than DNA but again, you pick and choose the facts you wish to believe.  They are sometimes confusing because Michael fed so much to the press and then denied.  Are they his children by blood?   Probably not but that shouldn't matter to anyone.  Chicken legs prove nothing.

Again here where all this took place, things slip out, people in the know talk.  It is the same with some of our murder trials.  The evidence not allowed in court is common knowledge here. 

Michael was not a mean spirited man and he certainly had more to share with the world in his music.  His death was more an involuntary suicide as he knew the risk he was taking in demanding the drugs he took.

[tcarroll]

What has any of this got to do with Mr. Barrie, the Davies, or Peter Pan? I thought this forum was for all of us who enjoy all things Barrie....no offence, but you really need to take this discussion to another site..in my opinion, which I am well aware means.....nothing.

[sunset]

Taylor wrote: "But get your facts straight.  In the Entertainment world, we here in Los Angeles, see and hear more than the general public.  Where there is sm9oke there is usually fire.  You do not pay out millions if you are innocent.  "

There is evidence he did not do it, actually. For one the first boys father said so himself during a recorded conversation. Unfortunately, that didn't realy cover the news. One might wonder why. Myths, I guess, sell better.
But do not speak about someone else getting their facts straight, when you yourself, clearly haven't.

I'm sure you hear a lot in the entertainment world. But that doesn't make them true. But you know that, I'm sure...

As for his kids, what does it matter? They look bright, healthy and well mannered, and loved their father dearly. ( I do think they are his, look closer at the pictures)

Michael had quite an unusual life, and he sure was 'different'. But that does not make him a criminal.

I also don't think he tarnished Peter Pan. It might have gotten a 'bad name' so to speak, but was that realy his fault? I don't think so. Because he did not molest any kid! I followed the trial closely, and did research on the earlier accusation.

I'm glad he didn't get the part though, simply because I don't like the movie and I don't think his acting skills to be that well...

[Taylor]

wow.  isn't the heading Michael Jackson.  And wasn't it started by Andrew himself?  You don't have to read these posts.  that is what a forum is all about.  Opinions.

[Hannah High]

Wait, wait...really? I know about Neverland, but Peter...I thought Peter was original. Obviously, not the name Pan (from the faun/chaos god), but wasn't Barrie's combination of Pan and baby Peter his own? I have to study a lot more, but I thought the idea of a boy who stays young forever was original (at least the way his character is, it certainly is!) And do share more about that tale of a boy who goes with kids to cross over (maybe from eariler mythlogies -none that I'm aware of though, but i love this stuff, please enlighten me!). Are you sure? I thought that boy with dead kids was Peter Pan by Barrie, and that Peter's name was Barrie's child in more than a play/book's sense. Is he a real boy like Peter or a spirit like an angel... share more.

[andrew]

This is certainly news to me too!  In all my Peter Pan dealings spanning over 30 years (including legal dealings with GOSH, the ghastly 1974 Danny Kaye/Mia Farrow musical, Mel Ferrer and Francis F Coppola, my own PP script for Coppola/Paramount in 1982, the more recent Universal movie, blah blah blah) I have never, ever heard anyone mention a pre-Victorian legend about a boy called Peter Pan... which of course doesn't mean to say there isn't/wasn't one, but without verifiable evidence I do remain a severely Doubting Thomas.

[andrew]

PS  Taylor, would you be kind enough to start your response as a new topic under "Peter Pan" as it has nothing (thankfully!) to do with M Jackson.  And btw, I got the feeling Sunset was referring to the dismal 2003 movie rather than the excerable Hook...

[sunset]

Hi Andrew,

Oh no, I ment Hook.

[AlexanderDavid]

This is certainly news to me too!  In all my Peter Pan dealings spanning over 30 years (including legal dealings with GOSH, the ghastly 1974 Danny Kaye/Mia Farrow musical, Mel Ferrer and Francis F Coppola, my own PP script for Coppola/Paramount in 1982, the more recent Universal movie, blah blah blah) I have never, ever heard anyone mention a pre-Victorian legend about a boy called Peter Pan... which of course doesn't mean to say there isn't/wasn't one, but without verifiable evidence I do remain a severely Doubting Thomas.

Not to continue the off-topic, but I agree--anyone can make the claim without providing evidence for it, though I don't wish to accuse anyone of lying.

At the very least, that comment about "falling out the nursery window" certainly makes me think about the story in another light now....

[Taylor]

I do not lie.  I have a LARGE bill for the copyright attorney, Michael Lorimer.  In a seguel I was allowede by copyright law to use Neverland and Peter Pan.  If J. M. Barrie had invented either, this would not have been allowed.  However if a use of the name pre 1904 could be found then it becomes public domain.

I just presented this as an interesting fact not to be put on trial.  I will delete my post.