Michael Jackson RIP

[andrew]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Which bit was the lie? 
Under the old Universal Copyright Convention (as opposed to the Berne Convention), the names Peter Pan, Hook, Tinkerbell et al  went into the public domain 52 years after they were first coined in print in the USA, to wit the New York Times in 1905, who published a full synopsis of the play. Thus you or anyone else would have been legally entitled to use the name Peter Pan at any point thereafter in all countries subscribing to the UCC - but not of course the UK, or any other Berne Convention member.
Incidentally, the place in Australia is called "Never Never Land", not Neverland.

[Hannah High]

we're not putting you on trial. Just curious. My question is not your legal dealings, but where did you (or whoever) find the name Peter Pan before Barrie. A storybook from before the 1900s, an oral tale? And where did you hear of a legand of a boy taking kids over? I'm not challenging you, don't be offended, I'm just curious.

[Taylor]

Andrew.  no studio would even consider such a project without world wide release.  My attorneys had to find a solution and they found one.  you as an author should have search beyond the obvious.  I have the documents and you can easily email me off list.

And I don't feel the Mia Farrow/Danny Kaye version was all that terrible.  It just lacked magic, but it did have some very nice moments.  Your work in that project is certainly not to be frowned upon.  My brother was one of the Twins in the Mary Martin production and the whole Mysterious Lady section bothered me in that version.  But magical it was so flaws are overlooked. 

[TheWendybird]

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.

If you want to call that involuntary suicide I could argue that we all at some point put ourselves in the way of possibly causing involuntary suicide. There are prescription drugs out there that have numerous side effects for some..sometimes..though rarely it can be serious. I took an anti biotic called sulfamethoxozole (spelling?) for a UTI last fall and my doctor concluded i'm allergic to it when i started laughing at things that were not funny, giggling in my sleep, sick all the time, and sitting and staring at the wall all day..among the more serious effects of this drug...one of which ironically happened to a woman in my province just after christmas....is the skin detaching from the body..and is VERY life threatening. But it's a simple anti biotic that can cause bad effects in some people. Now while I'm not advocating and saying it was okay that Michael took some of the stuff that he did...i dont think involuntary suicide says ANYTHING. The man-boy had problems....and I think they were more emotional and psychological and I think he had a lot of things haunting and bothering him and I think he needed some genuine people in his life. Even his family is full of backstabbers. Don't even get me started on LaToya or his father. He needed some genuine friends and I can honestly say as talented an entertainer as he is..I would have loved to have been his FRIEND more than anything. Fame or not. He's the kind of person I'd want to hang around with. And I think he needed many GENUINE friends who didn't care about the fame or money. Sadly I think he died without many. You know...since he died numerous people have said "oh me and Michael were close"...yet Michael himself said in an interview he can count the amount of close friends he had on one hand. It's frikkin tragic is what it is and I feel horrible for him. Just because your in hollywood doesn't mean crap to me anymore than my estranged father thinking he knows what goes through my head and why i go around wearing a disney faeries bookbag. You know NOTHING. The only people that know are the ones who were there. But I'm going to go by the evidence and there is NONE that he was guilty. Only that he was troubled and in pain and couldn't sleep. Are you actually in hollywood btw cause I used your e-mail to check myspace and it says you are in the UK. Just curious.

[andrew]

Without naming names, I know 2 of the friends MJ could count on 1 hand, and both convinced me that he was an innocent in every sense of the word. He may well have wanted/needed to touch or even cuddle with those children he loved, but he did not have sex with them. I am more inclined to believe these two people (1 male, 1 female) than all the tatty Tinseltown gossip put together.

[TheWendybird]

Without naming names, I know 2 of the friends MJ could count on 1 hand, and both convinced me that he was an innocent in every sense of the word. He may well have wanted/needed to touch or even cuddle with those children he loved, but he did not have sex with them. I am more inclined to believe these two people (1 male, 1 female) than all the tatty Tinseltown gossip put together.

Amen Andrew! I always thought the tv show "Hollywood Babylon" was well titled. They'll say whatever they want as long as it will be juicy or bring in money.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Regarding Michael Jackson, it's widely known that millions were paid out to the first accuser but not as well known that this was done entirely by Jackson's insurance company without authorization from Jackson or anyone in his camp.  (Wonder how he managed to maintain insurance when he continued to sleep with children after the first accusations.)     Also, the first accuser never testified at the trial brought about by the second accuser!  Did the payoff come with a gag order, or did the first accuser not have the gall to lie under oath?   

As far as the kids being biologically his, both boys have clear resemblances to him.  Supposedly he opted for a donor to avoid passing on vitiligo, but Prince shows signs of vitiligo as well as other physical similarities.  Yes, hair is blond but the mother's hair was blond, it's an awfully dark blond and getting darker.

As for Mark Lester's claims or what were reported as claims on his part.  Yes, there are similarities between him as a child, his daughter Harriet, and Paris Jackson, moreso than with Michael Jackson, but if Mark is the father, WHO was the mother?  Sure as hell not that albino Debbie Rowe, who is lighter than Mark!  Look at Mark, Harriet, and then Paris http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1205288/Is-Mark-Lester-father-Michael-Jacksons-daughter-Paris.html and see if you can seriously state that Debbie Rowe and Mark Lester produced that child!

Where Blanket is concerned, anyone who doesn't see the resemblance, hasn't got eyes.     That child is either Michael Jackson's own flesh and blood or the offspring of someone hand-chosen by Jackson for similarities.  You'd have more chance of winning the lottery than of having that kind of resemblance with an anonymous donor!  Jackson may have been misleading in implying the mother was black...if so, awfully light-skinned black...but my money is on the kids being his!

[TheWendybird]

Regarding Michael Jackson, it's widely known that millions were paid out to the first accuser but not as well known that this was done entirely by Jackson's insurance company without authorization from Jackson or anyone in his camp.  (Wonder how he managed to maintain insurance when he continued to sleep with children after the first accusations.)     Also, the first accuser never testified at the trial brought about by the second accuser!  Did the payoff come with a gag order, or did the first accuser not have the gall to lie under oath?   

As far as the kids being biologically his, both boys have clear resemblances to him.  Supposedly he opted for a donor to avoid passing on vitiligo, but Prince shows signs of vitiligo as well as other physical similarities.  Yes, hair is blond but the mother's hair was blond, it's an awfully dark blond and getting darker.

As for Mark Lester's claims or what were reported as claims on his part.  Yes, there are similarities between him as a child, his daughter Harriet, and Paris Jackson, moreso than with Michael Jackson, but if Mark is the father, WHO was the mother?  Sure as hell not that albino Debbie Rowe, who is lighter than Mark!  Look at Mark, Harriet, and then Paris http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1205288/Is-Mark-Lester-father-Michael-Jacksons-daughter-Paris.html and see if you can seriously state that Debbie Rowe and Mark Lester produced that child!

Where Blanket is concerned, anyone who doesn't see the resemblance, hasn't got eyes.     That child is either Michael Jackson's own flesh and blood or the offspring of someone hand-chosen by Jackson for similarities.  You'd have more chance of winning the lottery than of having that kind of resemblance with an anonymous donor!  Jackson may have been misleading in implying the mother was black...if so, awfully light-skinned black...but my money is on the kids being his!

I completely agree! And as I said before..especially with the two boys...their eyes remind me a lot of their fathers...a feature that has always stayed the same with him....through all the changes he made to his face his eyes have been the same since he was physically a child...I can see Michael in their eyes.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Glad to see what Andrew posted regarding Michael's innocence.  After his death it was mentioned that he spent most of his childhood in two-bed hotel rooms with his brothers.  With five or six boys and two beds, do the math.     He was simply USED to sleeping with young boys and missed it as an adult!

[TheWendybird]

Glad to see what Andrew posted regarding Michael's innocence.  After his death it was mentioned that he spent most of his childhood in two-bed hotel rooms with his brothers.  With five or six boys and two beds, do the math.     He was simply USED to sleeping with young boys and missed it as an adult!

I will fully admit until I was 20 I couldn't sleep alone...at least half the time I'd end up crawling in bed with my mom at night. Some might say I'm a big baby but oh well...was her fault for telling me there were monsters were i was three who were going to come get me if i didn't go to sleep....yeah she wasn't too bright back then lol hahaha but seriously...now i can't imagine sleeping alone..i went on to get married..that ended..i spent so many months sleeping alone and HATED it...and now i can't imagine ever not having my boyfriend there.

[Taylor]

 You all must have some odd glasses.  Those 2 older children do not resemble Michael Jackson.  You seem to pick what media hype you want to believe.  But it does not matter.  He accepted them as his children and the rest is his business.

If you truly believe MJ was innocent, read the FBI files on him.  They are documented in a book written by the Uncle of the first boy.  (who by the way wanted to give the money back and testify after he became of age. 
California DA said no.)

Why do you ask where i live?  Yes I live in London and Los Angeles.  My surname is Taylor you can figure out the rest for yourself.  End of discussion. 

[TheWendybird]

You all must have some odd glasses.  Those 2 older children do not resemble Michael Jackson.  You seem to pick what media hype you want to believe.  But it does not matter.  He accepted them as his children and the rest is his business.

If you truly believe MJ was innocent, read the FBI files on him.  They are documented in a book written by the Uncle of the first boy.  (who by the way wanted to give the money back and testify after he became of age. 
California DA said no.)

Why do you ask where i live?  Yes I live in London and Los Angeles.  My surname is Taylor you can figure out the rest for yourself.  End of discussion. 

There are court files that talk of how the first boy didn't have a clue what he was drawing when asked to draw the genetalia. He drew him uncircumsised and apparently he WAS circumsised. To me that is ONE BIG FLAW. The father of the first boy has been heard on recording about how he was going to ruin Michael Jackson and stuff I don't believe a word of it I think it all speaks for itself.

[Robert Greenham]

Apologies if anyone has already drawn attention to this lovely video on YouTube, put together by 'Peter Pan' and 'TheWendyBird', which has Michael Jackson's Have You Seen My Childhood as a soundtrack to excerpts largely from Andrew's/BBC's "The Lost Boys" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ansJ1V_mW7M

[TheWendybird]

Apologies if anyone has already drawn attention to this lovely video on YouTube, put together by 'Peter Pan' and 'TheWendyBird', which has Michael Jackson's Have You Seen My Childhood as a soundtrack to excerpts largely from Andrew's/BBC's "The Lost Boys" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ansJ1V_mW7M

Aww thanks so much for posting the vid

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Called to mind something said after the trial, along the lines of, "Michael Jackson may have molested children, but he did not molest *this* child."  Yet never has any case surfaced where it could be proven he did!  And never mind extortion attempts on Jackson--how about all the muckrakers who would have been waving money at any legitimate victim?  I saw the statements of the first boy, which, it seemed, could have been easily invented.  As for the second boy, I never read the transcripts, just brief descriptions of the court proceedings.  As for interviews, Jackson seemed to be a pathological liar on many subjects.  I can't speculate on why--anything from a wish to maintain an air of mystery to really something to hide to serious psychological problems.  In any event, it was very hard to tell what to believe based only on his words.  One has to weigh them along with other sources.  One thing that could very well have been true, if the leaked autopsy results are accurate, is that he could have produced children.  According to the report, his reproductive organs were present and functioning, which puts the lie to a number of stories which had been circulating.