View Full Version : Jackson 'healthy' before fatal jab
Michael Jackson was in good health before being given the anaesthetic that killed him, a leaked post mortem report revealed
http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=150018516>1=61501
So sad :~(
Michael Jackson was in good health before being given the anaesthetic that killed him, a leaked post mortem report revealed
http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=150018516>1=61501
So sad :~(
Physically maybe, mentally very doubtful.
His jab was required every certain amount of time, it just so happened to have a lethal dosage.
What you said is like saying, they were perfectly fine before getting hit by a car.
Yet one more excuse for the papers to continue publishing stories about him. Time to drop the dead...er, Jackson. :roll:
John Baikie
02-Oct-09, 21:34
The report then goes on to list a huge number of ailments, but despite those and his drug addiction and the fact he even had a doctor living at his home, administering jabs and god knows what else, he was 'in good health'.
:lol:
I can't be the only one thinking "Who cares?" surely?
John Baikie
02-Oct-09, 21:46
I can't be the only one thinking "Who cares?" surely?
I'm with you there actually :D
I just found the 'healthy' story quite humorous
One less monster must be good!!!
It's surprising how some people in the public eye can live a life that is an absolute shambles, seem be given almost mystical saint like attributes on death.
Examples :- Elvis, Hendrix , Joplin, Princess Diana, Mercury.
It's surprising how some people in the public eye can live a life that is an absolute shambles, seem be given almost mystical saint like attributes on death.
Examples :- Elvis, Hendrix , Joplin, Princess Diana, Mercury.
True, but as far as I'm aware, none of those touched children inappropriately (or did anything of that level of "badness").
I can't be the only one thinking "Who cares?" surely?
I'm with you there actually :D
I just found the 'healthy' story quite humorous
Agree with you both. Trying to prove that he was something he wasn't is just plain pointless. :roll:
ChuckBuscuits
03-Oct-09, 22:24
Examples :- Elvis, Hendrix , Joplin, Princess Diana, Mercury
True, but as far as I'm aware, none did anything of that level of "badness").
hmmm. first three:genius's but junkies;diana:wrong place at the right time,
mercury;his crime was being from Zanzibar!
unless you meant the planet,who's only crime is being too close to the sun [lol][lol]
True, but as far as I'm aware, none of those touched children inappropriately (or did anything of that level of "badness").
And where was it proven that Michael Jackson did?
And where was it proven that Michael Jackson did?
Oh please. I can't be bothered even arguing with you on this. If you seriously believe that he did not touch children inappropriately then that's fine. Hey perhaps we can go for a drink some time: just you, me, Santa Claus, The Bogeyman. What? You don't believe in those fairy tales? You are either naive, stupid, or simply looking to start an argument. Which ever it is you're not interesting enough for me to waste my time. I have many more entertaining ways of doing that.
ohhh do not let my mother here you say anything against Diana! she would take the frying pan that weighs more than she does to you!
saying that, while Diana love life may have been a mess, she was still a great woman!
even though her world had fallen apart she still devoted so much to those in need.
the woman could not get a break, and it wasn't like she courted the public, she couldn't get away from it!
we see the world thru the eyes of the invisible. imagine everything you said, did, wore, or even ate was up for the world to pick apart.
if you are a person who hounds to the paparazzi then that's all well and good, you want to be seen. but then if your a public figure that is just trying to live their lives and stay out of the light at least every now and again, and you have no choice of being famous, then how can we fault that.
personally, I think Princess Diana was a Great Woman, a role model and a very tragic figure.
She didn't want to be a celebrity, but ended up being one of the biggest.
Kevin Milkins
05-Oct-09, 02:09
Oh please. I can't be bothered even arguing with you on this. If you seriously believe that he did not touch children inappropriately then that's fine. Hey perhaps we can go for a drink some time: just you, me, Santa Claus, The Bogeyman. What? You don't believe in those fairy tales? You are either naive, stupid, or simply looking to start an argument. Which ever it is you're not interesting enough for me to waste my time. I have many more entertaining ways of doing that.
I have my own personal opinion of what may have been Michael Jackson's sexual preferences and although it may differ slightly to that of what the outcome of a very long and expensive trial that found him not guilty, I would never consider trying to ridicule someone for excepting the findings of a jury.
Whats your excuse for being so darn rude on an open forum to Fantoosh.
Whats your excuse for being so darn rude on an open forum to Fantoosh.
They presented a ridiculous point of view. Simple as.
Kevin Milkins
05-Oct-09, 02:32
They presented a ridiculous point of view. Simple as.
The point of view that they presented was a lawful one, are you above the law?
The point of view that they presented was a lawful one, are you above the law?
You yourself said that you thought differently than the outcome of the trial. Are you therefore above the law? You probably wont answer that. Why not? Because it is a stupid question. The result of the trial is neither here nor there - if someone firmly believes that Michael Jackson never did anything at all inappropriate with those children then they are wrong.
Aaldtimer
05-Oct-09, 03:40
ohhh do not let my mother here you say anything against Diana! she would take the frying pan that weighs more than she does to you!
saying that, while Diana love life may have been a mess, she was still a great woman!
even though her world had fallen apart she still devoted so much to those in need.
the woman could not get a break, and it wasn't like she courted the public, she couldn't get away from it!
we see the world thru the eyes of the invisible. imagine everything you said, did, wore, or even ate was up for the world to pick apart.
if you are a person who hounds to the paparazzi then that's all well and good, you want to be seen. but then if your a public figure that is just trying to live their lives and stay out of the light at least every now and again, and you have no choice of being famous, then how can we fault that.
personally, I think Princess Diana was a Great Woman, a role model and a very tragic figure.
She didn't want to be a celebrity, but ended up being one of the biggest.
Sorry to burst your bubble Brandy, but...the same woman had numerous affairs, was very manipulative of the press and TV,and the paparazzi, dumped the kids on their Dad, went off for a dirty weekend in Paris with an Arab, got well and truly screwed in the back of a car, and died as a result! Oh yeh, real role model!!![disgust]
like i said, her private life was a mess, so?
that woman did a lot of good works.
her husband never loved her, had an ongoing affair basically from the time they were married.
her father in law hated her, she was mentally abused for years by said spouse. hunted by the press.
you can not expect her to have played happy house wife, when she was pressed into marriage, turned into a baby maker, even though she obviously loved her boys. btw Charles was furious that harry wasn't a girl and blamed her. (i watch a lot of documentary's)
it wasn't until years after her marriage was an open shambles that she started to have affairs.
and so what? its ok for a man to run around, flaunt his mistress openly in her face. yet, she not be able to try and find some semblance of love?
her and her Arab as you put it, were a solid couple.
and she were persecuted by the press, i could never understand why no one went on and on about Charles and Camilla the way they did Diana.
always those double standards i guess.
Kevin Milkins
05-Oct-09, 11:04
You yourself said that you thought differently than the outcome of the trial. Are you therefore above the law? You probably wont answer that. Why not? Because it is a stupid question. The result of the trial is neither here nor there - if someone firmly believes that Michael Jackson never did anything at all inappropriate with those children then they are wrong.
I think the key word here is thought, and no, I do not consider myself to be above the the law.
The rights or wrongs of Michael Jackson's trial is for another debate on a different thread, the point I was trying to make is why do you believe that everyone is stupid because they don't share the same opinion as yourself.
I am not sure what they teach young people today, but manners is certainly not one of them and you may discover on your winding journey through life, you may need a bit more than education to succeed.
Sorry to burst your bubble Brandy, but...the same woman had numerous affairs, was very manipulative of the press and TV,and the paparazzi, dumped the kids on their Dad, went off for a dirty weekend in Paris with an Arab, got well and truly screwed in the back of a car, and died as a result! Oh yeh, real role model!!![disgust]
What hipocrasy, aaldtimer! She was divorced. Completely entitled to freely have a relationship with whom ever she wanted to. And yes, she did have relationships when married. But then so did he, didn't he? (And two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes they make you feel better for a while). Second (and more importantly): dumped the kids with their dad??????????? What do you call it when fathers "dump" their kids with their mothers and disappear forever? Double standards are alive and well!
As for MJ, he will be fodder for all kinds of dubious newspapers for a long time. Many truths will be told about him, but never the real truth. Just as the real truth is never really known about any public figure.
George Brims
05-Oct-09, 20:01
her father in law hated her
Where did you get that idea? She said somewhere that he actually tried to help her with a lot of advice over the years. In some ways their positions in life mirrored each other, and he tried to help her "fit in" with the Royal family.
just from what ive seen in the documentaries. that most of the strife came from Philip as he did not approve of her. i understood that it was a very stressful relationship between Elizabeth, Philip and Diana.
Oh please. I can't be bothered even arguing with you on this. If you seriously believe that he did not touch children inappropriately then that's fine. Hey perhaps we can go for a drink some time: just you, me, Santa Claus, The Bogeyman. What? You don't believe in those fairy tales? You are either naive, stupid, or simply looking to start an argument. Which ever it is you're not interesting enough for me to waste my time. I have many more entertaining ways of doing that.
A very sad comment. It is a pity that you wasted everyone's time in writing this insulting post.
Do you believe everything that you read in the 'papers or see on TV? So someone said that Michael Jackson was "touching" their child. Was it proven? No. Did the parents get loads of easy money? Yes.
As for HRH Princess Diana, Philip and Elizabeth made life unbearable for her in my opinion. And why did the police hide evidence from the forced inquiry into her death?
A very sad comment. It is a pity that you wasted everyone's time in writing this insulting post.
But this insightful post is obviously worth wasting everyone's time over.
Do you believe everything that you read in the 'papers or see on TV?
Well Sarah on page three told me that she thinks that raising the retirement age is wrong. *note - If that happens to be the name of the person on page three then it is a coincidence. I swear!
So someone said that Michael Jackson was "touching" their child.
Correction: some people.
Was it proven? No. Did the parents get loads of easy money? Yes.
I'll sort that for you. Question: "Was it proven?" Answer: "Did the parents get loads of easy money?"
As for HRH Princess Diana, Philip and Elizabeth made life unbearable for her in my opinion. And why did the police hide evidence from the forced inquiry into her death?
Let's sort out this Diana rubbish. She married Charles. They didn't get along. They got divorced - like many people do. She helped the poor and needy - and by helped I mean she went and shook their hand without a glove on. She got in a car in Paris. The driver was drunk, she didn't wear a seatbelt, the car crashed, they died. That is her oh-so-glorious life in what, 50 words?
Oh, and if they gave out awards for lack of subtlety, the inclusion of the HRH would certainly have won you one. And that joke was in no way forced.
dietcokegirl
06-Oct-09, 15:07
Dear god, You really just go on and on don't you? :lol:
Dear god, You really just go on and on don't you? :lol:
My abilities to go on and on are, some would say, legendary.
Let's sort out this Diana rubbish. She married Charles. They didn't get along. They got divorced - like many people do. She helped the poor and needy - and by helped I mean she went and shook their hand without a glove on. She got in a car in Paris. The driver was drunk, she didn't wear a seatbelt, the car crashed, they died. That is her oh-so-glorious life in what, 50 words?
And you accuse others of being naive!
Oh, and if they gave out awards for lack of subtlety, the inclusion of the HRH would certainly have won you one. And that joke was in no way forced.
Glad to see that my point was not wasted on you.
And you accuse others of being naive!
I'm not sure my you've really understood my comment if you think it is naive. It was really an attempt to undermine the idea that she was as good as she is made out to be. :eek:
Oh well.
Metalattakk
07-Oct-09, 03:03
Sorry to burst your bubble Brandy, but...the same woman had numerous affairs, was very manipulative of the press and TV,and the paparazzi, dumped the kids on their Dad, went off for a dirty weekend in Paris with an Arab, got well and truly screwed in the back of a car, and died as a result! Oh yeh, real role model!!![disgust]
Hey, stop slagging her off. [disgust]
She was a great lady and a wonderful, wonderful lover.
Aaldtimer
07-Oct-09, 03:25
Hey, stop slagging her off. [disgust]
She was a great lady and a wonderful, wonderful lover.
Oh aye, in yer dreams MA!
Just telling it like it was, non-judgemental.
Canna stand this St.Diana rubbish![disgust]
Metalattakk
07-Oct-09, 03:37
You'll not be reading the Daily Express much then, Aaldtimer? :D
Aaldtimer
07-Oct-09, 04:17
You'll not be reading the Daily Express much then, Aaldtimer? :D
Widna wipe my erse wi' it![disgust]
tonkatojo
07-Oct-09, 10:44
Hey, stop slagging her off. [disgust]
She was a great lady and a wonderful, wonderful lover.
Have you been there as well... ;)
luskentyre
07-Oct-09, 22:44
You yourself said that you thought differently than the outcome of the trial. Are you therefore above the law? You probably wont answer that. Why not? Because it is a stupid question. The result of the trial is neither here nor there - if someone firmly believes that Michael Jackson never did anything at all inappropriate with those children then they are wrong.
What a very strange comment...
"The result of the trial is neither here nor there" -eh?
I firmly believe that Michael Jackson never did anything at all inappropriate. Prove that I'm wrong.
What I dont get is....If someone touched your child, would you accept money from them? Would you hell, you would say "stick your money.....", and want him to get the punishment he deserves! So why would those parents accept money? If it is true that Michael Jackson did that, its pretty sick on the parents to let him get away with it and then take his money. I dont know the whole story, but this is what Im thinking
John Baikie
07-Oct-09, 23:51
What I dont get is....If someone touched your child, would you accept money from them? Would you hell, you would say "stick your money.....", and want him to get the punishment he deserves! So why would those parents accept money? If it is true that Michael Jackson did that, its pretty sick on the parents to let him get away with it and then take his money. I dont know the whole story, but this is what Im thinking
Well said!
AND if someone accused you of such a disgusting crime, which you never did, would you:
a: try to clear your name
b: pay accusers millions of dollars not to tell anyone
If this was some guy who lived in a flat on the same street as any of you, and didn't have a job, he'd be hounded out of town by the same folk making excuses for him now because he's famous.
luskentyre
10-Oct-09, 22:59
Well said!
AND if someone accused you of such a disgusting crime, which you never did, would you:
a: try to clear your name
b: pay accusers millions of dollars not to tell anyone
If this was some guy who lived in a flat on the same street as any of you, and didn't have a job, he'd be hounded out of town by the same folk making excuses for him now because he's famous.
If anything, the fact that he was famous meant that people wanted to see him fall. The media were like vultures around Santa Maria - there's nothing like a disgraced superstar to sell papers after all.
You choices are interesting, and say a lot.
a) Try to clear your name (note the word "try").
b) Pay accusers millions of dollars. As someone has already pointed out, what kind of parents accept money if their child had really been abused?
At the end of the day people believe what they want to believe, and also disregard certain facts.
I think certain individuals have a hard time believing that Michael Jackson could honestly be that innocent, that he could spend time with kids just enjoying their company. I believe that we all judge people by our own standards, and that some peoples standards are not all they could be.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.