Vantiy-Fair-Artikel /Neues Sullivan-Buch

[rip.michael]

... MJ Fans sind für ihn die letzten Idioten...naja wer soll dann sein Buch kaufen?

Okay, dann wären erstere schomma raus aus dem pulk der buchkäufer ... ist sicher nicht das geeignete MJ idiotenfutter!
Die fraktion der ewigen Michael hasser kommt da wohl eher auf ihre kosten ..

Weil du's erwähntest: würdest du uns bitte verraten, wie das neue buch von Lisa D. Campbell heisst ... vielleicht hier
Ich kenne nur das mit dem vorwort von B. Jones ...

[Christine3110]

guckst du hier

http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Jackson-Complete-Story-King/dp/0988413019/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352853437&sr=1-6&keywords=Lisa+Campbell+Michael+Jackson

[Dreamerdancer]

Hat Michael Bush nicht auch mal erwähnt, daß man ihn "aufgefordert" hat, schmuddelige Details über Michael zu schreiben und er hat es abgelehnt. Dafür hat er ein wertvolles Buch für die Nachwelt geschrieben und tingelt damit nicht durch jede amerikanische Quassel Show.

Es ist wirklich unglaublich, was alles so erzählt und geschrieben wird, eine Lisa Marie wird zu einer völligen Idioten abgestempelt, die alle ihre Kinder über Windbesteubung bekommen hat, die mit Michael verheiratet war, um keinen Sex zu haben,( die Jackson Familie bekommt bei ihm auch ihr Fett weg, wahrscheinlich haben sie ihm keine Infos gegeben, wollten nicht mit ihm zusammen arbeiten für sein Pamphlet) und diesem ****** von Sullivan wird damit auch noch eine mediale Plattform geboten, weil die Sender und Zeitungen wissen, daß MJ fans darauf anspringen und darauf reagieren, für Sender und Zeitungen mehr Aufmerksamkeit, mehr Klicks, mehr Werbung, mehr Kohle. Je skandalöser und bescheuerter die Aussagen von diesem Typ, um so besser.

Über pre-sexuell muß ich erste mal etwas nachdenken, das eröffnet einen ganz anderen Blick auf Michael, ist das eine Krankheit bei Erwachsenen

ein Twitter Eintrag, den ich passend finde

V @KINGDOM52
Randall Sullivan ("Untouchable") earns the prize of "The faster self-rediculed garbage-writer" ever ! Well done ! #Enjoying
Retweetet von Lovin KING&BAD25
Öffnen Antworten Retweetet Favorisieren

und von Joe Vogel
von unten nach oben lesen

Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
The assumption that only "crazy fans" take issue with this book is false. Many people simply want more depth & seriousness @marclamonthill
Öffnen
13h Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
How can an MJ biographer justify not even speaking to his creative collaborators? Not even researching his late albums? @marclamonthill
Öffnen
13h Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
Michael Jackson was his art. Focusing on the trivial distorts the most important part of his identity. @marclamonthill
Öffnen
13h Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
MJ is one of the great artists of all time, but Sullivan spends more time speculating about a prosthetic nose than art @marclamonthill
Öffnen Antworten Retweeten Favorisieren
13h Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
Will people ever stop pathologizing Michael Jackson? The problem with Sullivan's book is its reductiveness @marclamonthill
Öffnen

[Christine3110]

die Jackson Familie bekommt bei ihm auch ihr Fett weg, wahrscheinlich haben sie ihm keine Infos gegeben, wollten nicht mit ihm zusammen arbeiten

Anfangs waren wohl KJ u. Howard Mann Sullivans Quelle. Dann hatte Sullivan mit HM Zoff. KJ zog es vor sich auf die HMs Seite zu stellen und hörte auf Infos u. Stories an Sullivan weiterzugeben.

(habe ich zumindest so gelesen)

[Dreamerdancer]

hier die letzten tweets von Joe Vogel, ich kann gut verstehen, daß er frustiert ist, mich macht es nur noch wütend, wie diese Medienlandschaft funktioniert .

Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
@U4MJL @lmt4mj But hopefully Bad 25 will put the focus back on the artist and show there is an audience for scandal-free coverage
Öffnen
14m Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
@U4MJL @lmt4mj for media coverage. At this point, it's questionable whether I'll even get to do a paperback of MITM
Gespräch zeigen
15m Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
@U4MJL @lmt4mj Thanks to both of u for the support. It is frustrating. I worked very hard on MITM but it simply can't compete w/ these books
Gespräch zeigen
13 Nov B.E. @birgiterika
Can anyone explain why @JoeVogel1 wonderful books and works do not get HALF the attention as this horribly researched tabloid cramp? #noname
Retweetet von Joe Vogel
von St. Charles, MD Antworten Retweeten Favorisieren
20m Joe Vogel @JoeVogel1
@MorinenMJ I'm reluctant to draw more attention to it, especially because I think Bad 25 will drown it out for the most part
Gespräch zeigen

[rip.michael]

... It is frustrating. I worked very hard on MITM but it simply can't compete w/ these books

Ich kann Joe Vogels frustration einesteils verstehen, anderenteils nicht.
MITM kann freilich nicht mit dem werk von Sullivan (hab's grad erst angelesen .. abgesehen davon, dass fast ständig ausgekauter stoff noch einmal wiedergekäut wird und mir sein schreibstil nicht gefällt - wirklich was gravierend auszusetzen gab's der 20 seiten wegen nicht) konkurrieren - beide stehen wohl auf einem anderen level. Der intensive blick auf den künstler Michael Jackson hat wenig gemeinsamkeiten mit einem pseudo biografischen werk a la Sullivan - so würd' ich's mal bezeichnen, ohne die restlichen 807 seiten zu kennen. Ehrlich gesagt reizt mich schon jetzt nix mehr, den Sullivan weiterzulesen ... Das war mit Joe Vogel's MITM ganz anders, jede seite spannend und ständig neue blickwinkel und mir gefällt auch seine ambitionierte schreibweise, die meine englischkenntnisse stark gefordert und gefördert haben. Joe Vogel kann unendlich stolz sein auf seine veröffentlichungen und er hat mit sicherheit weltweit eine menge leute hinter sich, die das dankend anerkennen.

Aber ich weiss, seine frustration ist mehr darin begründet, dass die medien allgemein sich mehr auf Sullivans werk stürzen ... und auf die strange oddities, die sehr seltsamen verrücktheiten, die Sullivan meint in MJs bio zu entdecken und zu entlarven.

Seit tagen klebe ich an David Bowies song "Space Oddity" von 1969, kurze zeit nach der ersten geglückten bemannten mondmission veröffentlicht. Darin kommt diese textpassage vor:
This is ground control to major Tom, you've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear

Auch zu dem zeitpunkt und lange lange vorher hatten teile der medien stets einen strangen blick auf alles mögliche und unmögliche.
Da konnte einer quasi die welt aus den angeln heben und seinen fuss auf den mond setzen ... und 'die medien' interessierten sich dafür, welches shirt der bei der spacemission trägt ...
Kommt mir ungefähr so vor, wie die schräge diskussion im Obama thread, ob nun auch M. Romney MJs musik mochte oder nicht

[Dreamerdancer]

das englischsprachige amazon beschreibt das Werk so

Book Description
Publication Date: November 6, 2012
In a sweeping biography of unprecedented depth, author Randall Sullivan examines the life and death of one of the world’s most prominent and misunderstood stars: Michael Jackson.

Beginning with his final departure from Neverland, Untouchable takes readers through Jackson’s final four years, as he shuttled from California to the Middle East, Ireland, Asia, the East Coast, and Las Vegas, planning to recapture his wealth and reputation with a comeback album and a series of fifty mega-concerts, for which he was rehearsing until the day before his death. Sullivan also delves deep into Jackson’s past, and the man that emerges is both naive and deeply cunning, a devoted father whose parenting decisions created international outcry, a shrewd businessman whose successes blew up in his face and whose failures nearly brought down a megacorporation, and an inveterate narcissist who wanted more than anything a quiet, solitary, normal life. Sullivan has never-before-reported information about Jackson’s business dealings and the pedophilia allegations that irreparably marked his reputation, and exclusive access to inner-circle figures including Jackson’s former attorney and business manager. The result is a remarkable portrait of Michael Jackson, a man of uncountable contradictions who continues to reign as the King of Pop.

Zum Glück ist dieses Werk in Deutschland und der deutschen Medienlandschaft noch nicht angekommen und meinetwegen brauch es das auch nicht, vor allem nicht auf deutsch übersetzt. Ich warte immer noch sehnsüchtig auf Joe Vogels Buch in deutscher Auflage.

P.S. Eine Leser Bewertung dieses Buches schildert es als sehr gut recherchiert und der/die Kommentator/in sagt von sich selbst, daß er/sie MJ fan ist.

[Lena]

Die Review git das Ganze glaube ich ganz gut wieder:

http://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-Strange-Tragic-Michael-Jackson/product-reviews/080211962X/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

31 of 33 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Archaic - time travel back into tabloids of the 90s, November 11, 2012
By
Katerina - See all my reviews



This review is from: Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)
How is it possible to write a book and already have it considered out of date by information that has been released over 2 years before it was published? It's a good question, and one I'd raise to both Randall, his publisher and the people who've excerpted his story all over their tabloids (where Randall's info mostly originates).

Any book which now proclaims that Michael did not have a nose, insinuates he bleached his skin recreationally, hems and haws over his innocence, claims Michael hated his race or claims Michael didn't have relationships with women is frankly anachronistic. There is much publicly available information which sheds light on all of that - none of which is covered here. Michael's autopsy report is publicly available, why is that not used as a source for the information about his nose and instead misatributed quotes from The Sun are presented as though they are fact? It would seem to me that Randall didn't even look at the autopsy report but got distracted by some tabloid recreation of it back in the days after his death and failed to research beyond that point. He goes on for pages about this supposed Bobby Driscoll's prosthetic nose he imagines Michael had, all of it entirely fictional and so absurd that I wondered at the degree of shame the author lacked in its recounting, at no point in this fictional nose nonsense did he seem to stop and reconsider how he was making himself sound ridiculous with this obsession, and not Michael. His nose is right there in his autopsy; and yet here he writes almost 4 pages about a fake nose that never existed. But it goes to show how absolutely anything goes with Michael and Sullivan - it seems there is no tabloid story too crazy or wild that Sullivan doesn't believe has a degree of truth in it. The Michael here is a monsterized version of tabloid literature come to life.

-- He now claims the autopsy not revealing a prosthetic is based on the fact that Michael removed it at night. I'm not sure if he's aware but in the autopsy photos Michael clearly still has his nose, and neither the coroner, the bodyguards, paramedics, or even Murray ever mentioned the lack of a nose in their reports. Did Mike keep this jar of noses by his bed? At what point during the day would it be glued on? Why have none of these noses ever gotten out? Mike left his phone everywhere, but his detachable take-it-off-at-night-nose never went missing? Why weren't they photographed by the crime scene photographers? Cited anywhere by anyone involved that day? Wouldn't these fake noses be worth bazillions? Did it manage to re-attach itself to him during death for the photos? How exciting for it. It's also at odds with the original description in his book of how the coroner had to cut away the prosthetic (coroner never says this). Either he had it in the autopsy or he didn't; either way, we can clearly see in death his nose was with him, the coroner did not mention this lack of a nose and the nose seen there was the one he was normally seen with, i.e. this prosthetic nose business has absolutely no basis in reality.

He uses a quote from Taraborrelli's biography to claim Michael started bleaching in the 70s with his sister LaToya. Of course no source are named, and it's easily debunked as Toya has always been naturally very light skinned (their father Joe Jackson has green eyes because his mother is biracial and his father is listed as mulatto, as are all Michael's grandparents.) These stories about Michael's skin have been going on since the 80s because of his skin disorder, with the media seeking to fill in the blanks to explain the lightness in his skin for him, but when his vitiligo became public it should've illuminated many people on how easy it is to lie and perpetuate the lie about him, but instead Sullivan seems to lack any common sense and can't see what is obvious in hindsight. Or like the nose, was it that he just liked the idea of Michael hating his race so much he just couldn't let it go? Does he not ask himself why it's only the people who have something against Michael who claim he hated his race and bleached his skin (Blanca Francia, Stacy Brown, Bob Jones) and not people he was really close to? That he let his children be raised by an African woman and insisted on ensuring they were raised well versed in African history and that besides his mother he wanted a black woman raising them (Diana Ross)? His daughter even says, "I'm black and I'm proud of it." Obvious questions go unasked and unanswered here.

He claims Michael Jackson was a virgin, a moment in the book where I audibly laughed - a reaction I'm sure his ex wives and girlfriends would also share on such news. Even if he couldn't find people around them willing to speak, Randall should've perhaps taken note of those two G spot articles the police found amongst his things in 2003? Lisa Marie is quoted here as saying Michael was "somewhat asexual", you'd think with the way he presented this remark that this was a damning comment about their sex life: no, in reality she had been asked about his physical appearance, and that was her description. This is the kind of casual misquoting and omitting of information Randall does throughout his book. If it doesn't fit in with what he needs, he ignores it or re-contextualizes it. None of Lisa Marie's other remarks are included here (he made the moves on her, she wouldn't have married him if the sex wasn't good). He believes Bob Jones and the Neverland 5 (successfully countersued; exposed as liars on the stand) who claim nothing happened between Michael and Lisa, even though they had obvious agendas against Michael, were seeking to profit from the scandal, had left their jobs before they'd even married and were thoroughly discredited as witnesses (their testimony is like reading a surrealistic comedy); but we must forget, those are his best sources here. -- He's now claiming Lisa Marie and Michael may have "sexual contact", but suggests Lisa doesn't really know what sex is. That must be a real shocker to Mike who was trying to have a baby with her. He says that only Lisa can say if Mike was a virgin - that's funny, she's repeatedly confirmed they've had sex.

He claims that Debbie has never said she's had sex with him. This isn't true. The only reason we know Debbie's name is because in the News of the World exclusive in 1996 which broke the story, a journalist had befriended her undercover for 2 months while she was pregnant, this is what they taped her saying: "We started by fooling around a bit and the next thing we knew we were doing it. We knew we were going to try for a baby." And taped again undercover in 1997: "I can't wait to see him again. We're going to stay all day and night in bed - I can't wait." He claims Michael's kids didn't know who Debbie was until after his death. This is untrue, Paris has said that Michael would talk to them about Debbie. She also didn't only meet him when Michael "spilled bleaching agents on his scrotum," in early 93, she actually met him in 1981. The confidentiality agreement she signed after the divorce where she agreed not to talk about him or the kids in public was there to protect him, the kids, in case she wanted to hurt him in the future, and to protect Debbie from herself, as she'd already been caught speaking about both unawares before, it does not say anywhere Michael is not the father - Debbie and Debbie's custody lawyer have repeatedly stated he was.

He claims Sneddon had 5 victims who were going to show up and testify for him, and only one did (Jason Francia; could go down as "the one the juror's laughed at"), Jordan refused to testify against Michael, he was prepared to go to court in order not to have to testify. Randall doesn't say that the other 3 supposed victims? Absolutely testified. They were the defense's first witnesses; Wade, Brett, Mac. Randall also doesn't note that it was these boys that the Chandler's allege Michael had abused (because we all know Michael is the most selective pedophile in the world with all the kids he befriended and never abused) - kind of takes the sting out of that whole argument, huh? Neither does he go into the bizarre attempts of the prosecution attempting to convince their own supposed victims they had been molested. He doesn't counter the alcohol in cans story, even though that one was easily debunked thanks to the prosecution's own witnesses, the airline stewardesses.

There are so many other casual egregious errors throughout the book that it gave me a headache reading, just some - the proposed book circulated between Jermaine/Stacy was not written by Jermaine, but by Stacy (he's admitted as much, but now blames others). It should've clued him in that it's pretty ridiculous to suggest Michael could fit 3 twenty year old men on his lap after their mother's death - yes, they were twenty at the time, not children, so how would that work? Ask fanfic writer extraordinaire Stacy Brown. It did not circulate during the trial, but in 2006, which speaks volumes about its validity as attention hungry Stacy never mentioned it in 2005. Britney didn't supposedly cheat on Kevin Federline with Wade Robson, she supposedly cheated on Justin Timberlake. Debbie Rowe didn't have her first boyfriend at the age of 30, she had already been married/divorced by then (that was another moment of laughter from me). Jessica Simpson I doubt has ever visited Neverland. Michael didn't move into Neverland in 1990. Michael was not called "liver lips" by his brothers. LaToya didn't claim sexual abuse by her father in her book, she claimed it on the book tour. Michael never said he used any medication for his skin on Oprah. Uri Gellar is about as close to Michael as Martin Bashir. Corey Feldman was the one to ask about the book of skin diseases which involved STDs on Michael's table, so Michael explained them to him, is Randall really suggesting skin diseases and STD's were Michael's hook for kids, really? Mike had many books on skin diseases because he had skin diseases. Michael Jordan says it was Michael himself who called him up to ask to do the music video, which makes me suspect that he may have known who he was on the set - just a suspicious though, don't quote me as a fact on that, Randall (using Bob Jones' as a source for anything will just embarrass you; ask Tom Sneddon). On that note, there is no mention of head licking in any Jordan case documents, that ridiculous story came entirely from Gavin, then was bizarrely copied by Bob Jones/Stacy Brown; their testimony about it on the witness stand was another moment of comedy gold. The Jacksons contacted Branca 2 days after Michael's death because they knew he had the will, so how could they also claim they didn't know they had a will that first week? He quotes Schaffel saying Michael was scheduled to perform in the United We Stand Benefit concert in Washington but Michael failed to show up, that's odd as he also managed to perform "What More Can I Give?" at this same concert. He says TJ Jackson had 3 sons, he doesn't. He calls Eddie Cascio by his brother's name throughout the book. He mentions that Michael stayed with the Schleiter family after the trial and makes it seem like Michael only spent time with the son (who was in his 20s, not a kid), for some strange reason his sister Franziska who was there throughout is completely ignored (all the females in Michael's life are given this treatment, no mention of any of the female kids he'd befriended too, even in Wade's testimony Randall never mentions Wade said his sister also slept in the room with him, she testified to that too, so did Brett's sister and Simone Jackson). He brings up the panic room in Michael's bedroom - in reality that room came with the house, the original owner had installed it when he built it. He uses the locks on the door as a sign Michael wanted to keep people out; yeah dummy, that's why it's a panic room, do you normally have a welcome mat outside one of those? And if you think it's odd he needed this room, ask yourself why the original owner, one of the richest men in California at the time, had wanted it. If he was not a deviant, why is Michael? He mentions online posts where fans wish death upon Evan but fails to mention the death threats and stalkers Michael had which are both a matter of police and FBI record and also can be found on gossipy sites online, which he used as sources. Evan Chandler did not kill himself on November 14/15th, he killed himself on the 5th and the media reported about it before November 17th, which is when he bizarrely claims Evan was found. The stuff about Michael buying Elizabeth Taylor for the Private Home Movies thing is from Schaffel, I'm amused the price of that supposed jewellery has gone up with each retelling.

He claims here that the Chandler's attempted to keep a low profile after 1993. Does he know about the book deal they sought immediately after Michael's insurance settled? How Ray Chandler admitted in court records that Evan moved him in right after the allegations broke just so he could write it? Does he know about how Ray sold stories about Jordan to the National Enquirer throughout the 90s on behalf of his brother? Did he think Evan Chandler's 1996 lawsuit and demand for a record album to be released was a show of Evan seeking to be low key? Ray claimed he hoped the 2005 trial would bring vindication, why did he not ask why the Chandler's didn't seek this in 1994 with a criminal trial instead of book deals and frivolous lawsuits and demands for record contracts? Why didn't he ask Ray why he didn't take the stand in 2005? Why didn't he ask Ray why he claims now he told Jordan to testify in 2005, when in 2005 during his various paid for media appearances he claimed he had no contact with either Evan or Jordan at the time, as well as claiming that in his subpoeanas? Was Ray lying? Which time was he lying? (At the time he also claimed Jordan was out of the country as an excuse for why he didn't testify, but then he was photographed skiing in the US.) Does he know how on the audio recording before he claims Jordan had even confessed Evan said that he himself wanted to make it as public as possible? That recording was on July 8th; Jordan was supposedly drugged to confess on July 16th. How does that jibe with his claims it was the Chandler's who wanted to keep it low key and Michael who made it a public issue? Why doesn't he explain Evan's failure to report MJ was molesting Jordan at June's custody hearing, but the police only learned by the psychiatrist the next day? Is it because he didn't want Michael to sue him for making false allegations? Why does he not realize the explanation given for why Jordan cut off contact with him in 2005 doesn't make sense? If Evan suffered from cancer and manic depression, wouldn't he sympathize with him? Why wouldn't Jordan care about the man who rescued him from supposed "anal sex" when he died, a moment most people would forgive their parents any mistakes? How did Evan abandon his two younger kids but still lived with Jordan, who was apparently close to both? Why did he abandon the two kids with no money, but stuck with the millionaire son? Why does Ray Chandler need to research books on pedophiles, if Michael was one and he can just go by that? Why does he need to further inform himself of how they work? Who describes their nephew's abuser as someone who just "had needs"? Do you think the relatives of Sandusky react the same way to him? He claims Evan stated in his petition to remove custody from June that she had "prostituted" her son to Michael; does he not think what Evan Chandler threatened on those tapes on June 8th ("It'll be a massacre if I don't get what I want"), how he had been demanding money in private over the idea his son was molested ("irrelevant to me"), just according to a psychiatrist who had not met any of them personally, and how he only wanted a civil lawsuit, a book deal, an album deal, a script deal (initially), and a further $60 million was not also prostitution? But according to Ray, this was "protecting" his son?

He claims Michael was paralytic with drugs almost the entire way through the last 20 years. It seems every drug story about Michael on Earth has been added here as a fact. It amuses me greatly that Michael was such an opiate addict, and yet managed to wean himself off these drugs entirely by the time he died, and the only drugs inside him were non opiate sedatives administered by Murray. Isn't it a bit ironic that Michael could wean himself off this huge addiction to every drug known to man, but only died because of another non addictive drug? That none were found in his home or autopsy? That none are presented in any medical documents from the last months of his life, besides Demerol for the treatments with Klein, which the drug addict specialist in the trial even admitted did not fall into an addict's level of use? He even copied and pasted a remark from a tabloid about how Michael shirked away from sunlight at one point as evidence for Michael's drug use - in reality, Michael was photo sensitive because of his discoid lupus.

It makes me wonder if it's possible to write a book about Michael where almost the entire source material doesn't come from people who have been found to have lied about him in court cases, lawsuits or found to have stolen from him, considering the sources Randall mainly uses here: Tohme (stole $5,000,000 million from MJ), Schaffel (stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Michael, planted negative stories about him in the press, Debbie Rowe amusingly recounted Schaffel's creepiness in her testimony in 2005), Adrian McManus (successfully countersued by Michael; was found to have stolen toys from sick children & from her own nieces and nephews), Mark Lester (claimed to be Paris's father 4 years before he'd been re-acquainted with Michael, even his ex wife came out and denounced him as a liar desperate for media attention), Matt Fiddes (only met Michael briefly after Blanket was born; known as a "vainglorious attention seeker" by Channel 4 producers) Howard Mann (has lost many lawsuits against the estate, blackmailed Michael's mother into dodgy deals involving his kids), Ray Chandler brother to Evan (Michael subpoenaed him in 2004 demanding he show up with the evidence he claimed he had in his book; Ray refused and eventually he admitted he had no such info, his book was essentially fiction), Terry George (he wasn't found out because rumors reached the LAPD, what nonsense, he had a gay sex chat line back then and when the scandal broke he seized on that to sell a story in The Sun for thousands of pounds, this is why anyone knows about him; FBI and DA didn't find him credible, he's changed his story a few times since - the one here is a new fancy retelling, he was and is still obsessed with Michael and even he admits Michael refused to take his calls, so much for grooming kids) Stacy Brown (admitted to lying in his book for money in his 2005 testimony; sued by juror's for plagiarism after that, a habitual liar who admits he never even really met Michael), Bob Jones (admitted he had an axe to grind, admitted to lying about money in the trial, and yet his book is used here as gospel) and so on and so on. Were these the only people willing to speak to Randall? Or, more likely, were these the only people Randall wanted to hear about Michael from? Was he incapable of deducing which things were lies by the amount of evidence, or did he assume the things which were the most ghastly and often repeated (what sells more?) had to be true? Would he be shocked to discover not everyone around Michael was a liar and a thief and there were many, many decent sources he could've used? Did he just not care? Whatever the answer, in the end the result is an almost entirely fictional book.

Perhaps the author had the best intentions for this book (though I suspect, not for Michael). Perhaps he really believes the information he presented is fair and objective. Perhaps he felt this was all there was to the story. But I can't understand why so many problematic sources were used as though they were absolutes, why so much information was not properly researched beyond tabloid articles, and why so much info has been seemingly intentionally misquoted. It comes across intentionally done and I can't understand why.

I find it bewildering really that he will talk about Michael as being a good father - something even the liars and the thieves around him have all agreed upon, and yet people still fail to realize the way he was with his own children was how he was with every other child. It doesn't take a genius to have to work that one out, but it's an inconvenient truth for many, so instead we're left with all the liars and thieves and rehashed The Sun articles, and can now count the willfully uninformed Randall Sullivan among them.

[Dreamerdancer]

Wow,das sind Hammerschläge die auf Sullivans "Werk" niederprasseln. Sie seziert sein Buch regelrecht.

[Christine3110]

Zitat aus einer anderen Rezension, über Dr. Richard Strick, der Michael im Auftrag des Staatsanwaltes 1993 untersuchte u. sich mit seiner Krankengeschichte befaßte:

Dr Richard Strick who had examined Michael on behalf of the DA in December 1993 and looked over his medical records has said, "Lupus is also an autoimmune disease and he also had skin involvement, which had destroyed part of the skin of his nose and his nasal surgeries and all were really reconstructive, to try and look normal. The first [reconstructive nose job] was to try and reconstruct from some scar tissue and obstruction that had happened with the skin there. It didn't work out very well and all subsequent attempts were to make it right. I think he was trying to look like a normal guy as best as that he could."

"Lupus ist auch eine Autoimmunerkrankung und auch seine Haut war davon betroffen, ein Teil der Haut seiner Nase wurde zerstört und seine Nasenoperationen galten wirklich dem Wiederaufbau, um zu versuchen einigermaßen normal auszusehen. Bei der ersten rekonstruktiven OP versuchte man Narbengewebe und eine Blockierung zu entfernen . Es war nicht erfolgreich und alle nachfolgenden OPs fanden statt, um es einigermaßen zu richten. Ich denke, er versuchte wie ein normaler Mensch auszusehen, so gut wie es eben ging."

[Dreamerdancer]

Also hatte er nicht nur Lupus auf dem Kopf, wie Taraborelli geschrieben hat, sondern auch im Gesicht, diese Krankheit wird auch als Wolfsgesicht, oder Schmetterlingsflechte bezeichnet und zieht sich von den Wangen über die Nase in einer Schmetterlingsform und zerstört Hautgewebe. Die Medien wußten von diesem Untersuchungsergebnis genauso, wie sie von der Diagnose Vitiligo und der Beschreibung des Jungen von seinen Genitalien wußten, aber haben ihn weiterhin als Freak bezeichnet, der sich selbst gehaßt hat, weiß sein wollte und seine eigene Mutter hat in die gleiche Kerbe gehauen in Oprahs Interview, daß sie doch zu den Ärzten gelaufen ist und sie gebeten hat, daß Michael doch aufhören solle an seinem Gesicht und Nase herumschnippeln zu lassen. Dabei hat der arme Kerl die ganze Zeit nur versucht Schaden zu begrenzen.
In einem anderen Thread habe ich berichtet, daß ein Mitglied in unserer Kirchengemeinde , ein unbehandelten Lupus hat, er sieht wirklich furchtbar aus, wer das nicht gesehen hat, kann sich nicht vorstellen, wie sehr Lupus ein Gesicht zerstören kann.

In Cascios Buch ist ein Foto vom ungeschminkten Michael, da sieht man ganz deutlich die mit Narben übersäte Nasenspitze.

[BlaueBlume]

Gelöschter Beitrag von mir:
Hab` gerade gesehen, dass wir das ( von Dr. R. Strick) schon hier im Forum haben.

http://www.mjackson.net/forum/printthread.php?t=15683&pp=10&page=10

Post Nr. von sweetheart vom 06.10.2012, 12:43

[cori79]

Patrick Treacy stellt via Facebook seine Meinung über das Buch dar. Er meint, das dieser Autor ihn nie interviewt hat und seine Aussagen über Dritte und Tabloids als seine(Treacys) darstellt. Dr. Treacy würde niemals Michaels Vertrauen missbrauchen und das glaube ich ihn auch! Er ist ein sehr ehrwürdiger Mensch, wie Meserau auch. Dieses Buch werde ich mir garantiert nicht kaufen.

Author Randall Sullivan, whom I respect as a journalist appears to have two major confrontational issues with the fans- that of Michael's vitiligo and the other regarding his alleged prosthetic nose. There were other less controversial issues relating to Michael's financial situation and his sexuality. He states above 'I interviewed many people who were close with Michael Jackson including his criminal attorney Tom Mesereau, personal attorney Dennis Hawk, former business managers, Tohme Tohme and Dieter Wiesner, Michael’s mother Katherine Jackson, many of her advisors and many more. You can also read the 173 pages of notes found in Untouchable that list my sources and how I vetted them. The author never once asked me a question even though I could have answered all these issues, rather he chose to participate in idle newspaper speculation and chose to quote me third-hand from other articles. As the fans know, I certainly would not have broken Michael's confidentiality but I am surprised in an almost 800 page novel there was never even one call- some research.

[aurelia]

Ehemaliger Redakteur des" Rolling Stone "

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/the-randall-sullivan-project-a-novel-technique-of-michael-jacksons-slander/

[Christine3110]

Mr. Mesereau steht hinter dem Buch u. kritisiert jene Fans, die dagegen sind