Lisa Marie Presley: Michael Jackson d...

Lisa Marie Presley: Michael Jackson didn't want to die like my father Elvis

There are 60 comments on the Daily Mail story from May 4, 2013, titled Lisa Marie Presley: Michael Jackson didn't want to die like my father Elvis. In it, Daily Mail reports that:

Elvis's daughter Lisa Marie Presley will tell a court that her ex-husband Michael Jackson feared he would die of a drugs overdose, as her father had done.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Mail.

persephone

Sunnyvale, CA

#25 May 7, 2013
WIGGY BALDO wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Gullible fool.
How do you know? Do you know this person? What would be this person's motivation for lying about it?
Doing Research

UK

#26 May 7, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> I don't go around with a preconceived judgment and verdict about anyone or anything.
I look at the exact same material about MJ and come to a completely opposite conclusion--that he was innocent and the true victim in that whole mess.
Your inability to accept the fact that a person can be knowledgeable and well-informed about the subject and arrive at a different conclusion from you says more about you than it does about either MJ or those who defend him.
You accuse Gavin and his family of falsely accusing Mr Jackson in an attempt to receive a substantial amount of money, when in fact, this family never launched a civil case, nor did they do any book or television deals. And you say you don't have a "preconceived judgment" about anyone or anything?

Again you have just proven, what a malicious devious liar you are.
persephone

Mountain View, CA

#27 May 7, 2013
Doing Research wrote:
<quoted text>
You accuse Gavin and his family of falsely accusing Mr Jackson in an attempt to receive a substantial amount of money, when in fact, this family never launched a civil case, nor did they do any book or television deals. And you say you don't have a "preconceived judgment" about anyone or anything?
Again you have just proven, what a malicious devious liar you are.
They did not go to the police but instead consulted a civil attorney who just happened to be the same attorney who handled the Chandler case. What a coincidence.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that maybe the Arvizos knew they had reached their limit with their lies and didn't dare pursue a civil case, for fear of their lies being even more painfuly obvious.

Too bad they didn't; it would have been very satisfying if they had been stuck with the bill and the public humiliiation after they lost once again. But at least it saved the state of California time and money but not having yet another stupid case clogging up the courts.
500 Names Are Not Enough

Sydney, Australia

#28 May 7, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> I don't go around with a preconceived judgment and verdict about anyone or anything.
I look at the exact same material about MJ and come to a completely opposite conclusion--that he was innocent and the true victim in that whole mess.
Your inability to accept the fact that a person can be knowledgeable and well-informed about the subject and arrive at a different conclusion from you says more about you than it does about either MJ or those who defend him.
Not at all. You are basing your opinion on 'facts' such as the grand juries viewing items for which there is no such evidence they viewed them. You are just biased and in love with a pop star.

*laughter*
500 Names Are Not Enough

Sydney, Australia

#29 May 7, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> They did not go to the police but instead consulted a civil attorney who just happened to be the same attorney who handled the Chandler case. What a coincidence.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that maybe the Arvizos knew they had reached their limit with their lies and didn't dare pursue a civil case, for fear of their lies being even more painfuly obvious.
Too bad they didn't; it would have been very satisfying if they had been stuck with the bill and the public humiliiation after they lost once again. But at least it saved the state of California time and money but not having yet another stupid case clogging up the courts.
No bias there, right?

*arched eyebrow*

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#30 May 7, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> I don't go around with a preconceived judgment and verdict about anyone or anything.
I look at the exact same material about MJ and come to a completely opposite conclusion--that he was innocent and the true victim in that whole mess.
Your inability to accept the fact that a person can be knowledgeable and well-informed about the subject and arrive at a different conclusion from you says more about you than it does about either MJ or those who defend him.
You're too knowledgeable about child molesters and too quick to defend them. You obviously have personal experience on the subject. Was there a gawky teenager in the bedroom of any of the adults in your family, this morning, including yours?

P.S. I read the legal documents and realized Michael was a pedophile. I guess by reaching different conclusions, you think Michael was a "boy lover." Sorry, in my world, there is no such thing as a boy lover. They are pedophiles.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#31 May 7, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> They did not go to the police but instead consulted a civil attorney who just happened to be the same attorney who handled the Chandler case. What a coincidence.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that maybe the Arvizos knew they had reached their limit with their lies and didn't dare pursue a civil case, for fear of their lies being even more painfuly obvious.
Too bad they didn't; it would have been very satisfying if they had been stuck with the bill and the public humiliiation after they lost once again. But at least it saved the state of California time and money but not having yet another stupid case clogging up the courts.
Please provide links to legal documents, supporting your claims, so that I can read them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#33 May 7, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> What was it like for you?
It provided me with a clearer insight into drug addicts. We are so blessed not to walk in their shoes. I wouldn't wish addiction on my worst enemy. So many can never snap out of it because their brain chemicals have been changed beyond help which I guess is what happened with poor MJ. Thanks to Murray and AEG.
BIGGY WALDO

Hounslow, UK

#34 May 8, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> I don't go around with a preconceived judgment and verdict about anyone or anything.
I look at the exact same material about MJ and come to a completely opposite conclusion--that he was innocent and the true victim in that whole mess.
Your inability to accept the fact that a person can be knowledgeable and well-informed about the subject and arrive at a different conclusion from you says more about you than it does about either MJ or those who defend him.
Sorry PerseSledge - weren't you the one who said that 'something far worse than molesting children' was probably Wacko not calling them back? Yes, you were.

You are an excuser, a celebrity worshipper and a child disregarder at best, child hater at worst. Myself and the rest of the people that you deem 'haters'(with the exception of f'loon ar$e sniffer Kevin Shanley) are not which is why we can distinguish reality from wishful thinking.
BIGGY WALDO

Hounslow, UK

#35 May 8, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> How do you know? Do you know this person? What would be this person's motivation for lying about it?
I thought you were trying to portray yourself as somebody who could read between the lines and draw accurate conclusions. No?

*laughter*
Charla

Faro, Portugal

#36 May 8, 2013
Michael said in the Schmulley Tapes that he wasn't happy when he was married to Lisa and Debbie... so without doubting the marriages Lisa surely wasn't his great love. Debbie admitted they didn't live together and the kids were a present for Michael.
Doing Research

UK

#37 May 8, 2013
[QUOTE who="perse(devious)phone "]<quoted text> They did not go to the police but instead consulted a civil attorney who just happened to be the same attorney who handled the Chandler case. What a coincidence.[/QUOTE]

Exactly why does it matter that they hired the same attorney? This is just another one of your sly and devious attempts at poisoning people into believing that this was all about money. It's already been kindly pointed out in the court documents that this family never discussed money with this individual, but somehow you want people to believe it was.
Doing Research

UK

#38 May 8, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that maybe the Arvizos knew they had reached their limit with their lies and didn't dare pursue a civil case, for fear of their lies being even more painfuly obvious.
I doubt they were liars because you are a liar and you don't seem to have any limits.
Doing Research

UK

#39 May 8, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad they didn't; it would have been very satisfying if they had been stuck with the bill and the public humiliiation after they lost once again. But at least it saved the state of California time and money but not having yet another stupid case clogging up the courts.
And your statement just goes to show that you are a disturbed and troubled individual who has major issues concerning children, because no decent human being would ever get satisfaction out of individuals losing the child molestation case.

You need help.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#40 May 8, 2013
Doing Research wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly why does it matter that they hired the same attorney? This is just another one of your sly and devious attempts at poisoning people into believing that this was all about money. It's already been kindly pointed out in the court documents that this family never discussed money with this individual, but somehow you want people to believe it was.
Pedophone is dead wrong on that one. They first went to an attorney, named Bill Dickerman, who referred them to Larry Feldman. Larry then went to Dr. Katz, and the three of them went to Child Protective Services, after that. He also said, twice, no civil suit was ever discussed. Larry's testimony begins on page 153. It was interesting at how hostile he was to Mesereau. Some of his responses were priceless.

http://www.mjfacts.info/transcripts/Court%20T...

I really think is pathetic how f'loon either intentionally lie and/or believe what they've been told. So much for getting their F.A.C.T.S. straight.
MissyM

Waukegan, IL

#41 Jun 10, 2013
I get sick of the excuses. MJ was old enough too know that such close contact with children would set off alarms in this day and age...and yet he made the choice to do it over and over. Look, I did childcare and I am careful about my, my husbands, my male sons interaction with the children. It is common sense. Guilty or innocent his actions were stupid and irresponsible,,,but a reflection of his reckless behavior with drugs. He gambled and lost,,,but he rolled the dice.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#42 Jun 11, 2013
MissyM wrote:
I get sick of the excuses. MJ was old enough too know that such close contact with children would set off alarms in this day and age...and yet he made the choice to do it over and over. Look, I did childcare and I am careful about my, my husbands, my male sons interaction with the children. It is common sense. Guilty or innocent his actions were stupid and irresponsible,,,but a reflection of his reckless behavior with drugs. He gambled and lost,,,but he rolled the dice.
If he truly wasn't a pedophile, he wouldn't have been sleeping with other people's children. Or, he would have learned the first time around to discontinue sleeping with other people's children. Or he would never have talked about how beautiful it was to sleep with other people's children, on public television, all the while holding hands with a little boy.
MissyM

Waukegan, IL

#43 Sep 5, 2013
Exactly.
persephone

Sunnyvale, CA

#44 Sep 5, 2013
MissyM wrote:
Exactly.
Since when did holding hands become a sign of sexual attraction?
MissyM

Waukegan, IL

#45 Sep 5, 2013
In and of itself, singularly it didn't. But you know that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Black Entertainment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Fast and Furious' Drama Continues: Tyrese Shar... Oct 14 ERIC 3
News O.J. Simpson Found Guilty!: He could get life i... (Oct '08) Oct 10 Blm2017 1,989
News Michael Jackson - Michael Jackson Religious Por... (Jun '12) Oct 9 Spotted Wee 96
News Tattle: Janet Jackson for Nutrisystem (Dec '11) Oct 8 rered 5
News Michael Jackson's 'Scream' Is The Perfect Hallo... Oct 3 fat tired old and... 1
White humiliation and slavery (Jan '16) Oct 3 Wolfman Jenkins 23
News NFL's embrace of Timberlake a racist, sexist joke Oct 1 Sharon 1
More from around the web