Deaths | Janet Jackson | Michael Jackson | News

Janet Jackson: 'Michael Will Live Forever in All Our Hearts'


Janet Jackson spoke about her brother Michael at the BET awards last night.

Said Janet: "My entire family wanted to be here tonight but it was just too painful (except for father Joe Jackson, of course, who was plugging his new business venture on the red carpet), so they elected me to speak with all of you, and I'm going to keep it short but I'd just like to say that, to you, Michael is an icon. To us, Michael is family, and he will live forever in all of our hearts. On behalf of my family and myself, thank you for all of your love, thank you for all of your support. We miss him so much. Thank you so much."

Following Janet's remarks, Jamie Foxx and Ne-Yo performed a tribute.

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. God bless you Michael. You will live in our hearts forever, but like all great artists you were taken from us to soon. :(

    Posted by: Mo | Jun 29, 2009 10:00:06 AM

  2. Actually, some great artists live to ripe old ages.

    It's nothing more than a silly romanticization of substance-abuse and mental-health issues to say "ALL great artists die young."

    It's just not true.

    Posted by: JeffNYC | Jun 29, 2009 10:27:47 AM

  3. the father seems like a piece of work and the rest of the family knows this. janet didn't even address him once

    Posted by: maxx | Jun 29, 2009 10:29:21 AM

  4. I *cannot* understand the outpouring of sadness and grief over the death of Michael Jackson. He was accused multiple times of child molestation. He appeared on camera in a documentary holding the hand of an 11 or 12 year old child as though he was his boyfriend (that child later accused him of molestation). He admitted inviting pre-pubescent boys to share his bed with him. And he had another hallmark of a pedophile: he preferred the company of children to adults. Now, I know all the MIchael Jackson fans/apologists are going to come to his defense saying that Michael was "just eccentric". So let me ask you: when was the last time you invited someone else's pre-pubescent boy to share your bed? When was the last time you held hands with someone else's pre-pubescent child? Liza Minelli is eccentric. Michael Jackson was a pedophile.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 29, 2009 10:36:36 AM

  5. PeterParker, you're clearly a victim of the sensational news outlets and rag mags. Nothing was EVER proven, that's why Michael never went to jail. Michael was an easy target. The boy that accused him in the early 90's is now saying he lied because his father asked him to. Michael should have NOT even been around those kids without other adults around, but I don't believe for a second he molested them. He was a meal ticket for dishonest evil assholes who probably think as you do, say it and they'll believe it.

    Posted by: Bobby | Jun 29, 2009 10:44:30 AM

  6. @PETERPARKER, you are a heartless, insensitive soul. How can you type those words after seeing that video?? PLUS, Michael was accused, NEVER convicted!

    Posted by: sonnie | Jun 29, 2009 10:46:50 AM

  7. I never thought either of the two accusations made against him were credible, and there were countless people who vouched that he never did anything inappropriate. One man who knew him said he was such a good father, it made him ashamed. Everyone close to him seemed to echo this sentiment. He is probably one of the most tragic, mysterious and misunderstood figures in pop culture history.

    I remember watching the news every day during the that trial. They almost went to any lengths imaginable to bring this man down. They even created an awful exception just for him, which allowed "prior bad acts" to be admitted as evidence in court for an unrelated case, regardless of if you were ever actually charged with anything (which he wasn't). So the DA brought all these disgruntled ex-employees and whatnot to come give their flimsy hearsay testimonies, and showed absolutely no interest in corroborating the accounts with people who were actually accused of being molested. For instance, the DA found one guy who suddenly remembered witnessing Macauly Culkin being molested by Michael Jackson, so immediately put him on the stand to testify. Shockingly, he didn't even bother to attempt to contact Culkin himself, who had to actually come to court to defend himself and Jackson by stating, no, actually I was NOT molested. Jordy Chandler, who was the boy involved in the 93 accusation (made primarily by his parents btw, who he has now been estranged from for many years, probably because they used him for money), had the opportunity to come testify against Michael Jackson in 2005. He chose not to. I would think if someone who had been molested by Jackson finally had a chance to put him behind bars, and prevent anyone else from experiencing the same, they would.

    The entire ordeal was surreal and unprofessional to an amazing degree, but regardless of all the crazy allegations and paper-thin evidence they could dredge up, from every available source they could find after numerous raids of his property, he still came back with unanimous NOT GUILTY on all counts by all jury members. Remember, much of the previous accusations WERE finally aired in court in 2005. All the cards were put on the table, and to those who were actually required to examine the evidence, no convincing case could be made. If anything, taking a closer look at the evidence makes one realize how victimized Jackson has been in the entire ordeal.

    I understand why most people think he's guilty. It seems almost a no-brainer. Obvious. Freaky weird guy obsessed with childhood and childish things, loves kids, gets accused, etc. So I get it. But most people don't really bother to actually look closely into the accusations, because it DOES seem so obvious. And thats why Michael Jackson was accused in the first place IMO. He was the perfect target. No one would question an accusation against him. Extremely rich, extremely weird, obsessed with childish things. And yet countless children enjoyed his company, even remaining friends into adulthood, and always vouched that he was like just another kid to them hanging out. Trying to be normal in some way. Out of those many people he befriended, two ended up involved in accusations against him, both heavily driven by their parents, and both quite incredible upon closer examination.

    Good article on the 93 case:

    And this book is supposed to be a great account of the trial and circumstances surrounding it (although I have not read it yet), written by a journalist who was convinced of his guilt until she investigated and completely changed her mind:

    Posted by: Wes | Jun 29, 2009 11:02:35 AM

  8. Some people are born to be CRUEL. Even in the gay community. Such is the world we live in. You'd think we would know better. Coming down on Michael Jackson now, serves no purpose nor has it ever.

    Posted by: sonnie | Jun 29, 2009 11:09:37 AM

  9. Michael Jackson did not deserve to die painlessly, at home.

    He was a sick, twisted child molester with a lot of money and fame to buy people off.

    Michael Jackson should have died in prison, where he belonged.

    Posted by: chasmader | Jun 29, 2009 11:12:00 AM

  10. Jamie Foxx ruined the whole thing by, again, talking too much. Just shut up and sing Jamie. It's NOT about you.

    Posted by: Mark | Jun 29, 2009 11:15:32 AM

  11. Anyone who has anything negative to say about this man at this time is truly an unhappy and negative individual. Find some joy in your life and maybe people will celebrate you when you pass on. Rest in Peace MJ!

    Posted by: Brandon T | Jun 29, 2009 11:19:43 AM

  12. Here is an interesting article

    It claims no proof about the accusations being credible and only being from money grubbing parents using their children to rip off Michael

    It makes the claim that Michael was gay and talks about some of his boyfriends (all legal age)

    It also discusses his being manipulated up to his death

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jun 29, 2009 11:23:15 AM

  13. Right on Wes!
    (By the way, I'm unable to post using Firefox 3.0.11 - had to use IE)

    Posted by: sparks | Jun 29, 2009 11:33:42 AM

  14. I thought Janet was oddly unemotional. I guess it suggests to me that his death to her was not a shock.

    Posted by: Scott | Jun 29, 2009 11:47:19 AM

  15. jimmyboyo, thats a fascinating article. thanks

    Posted by: Wes | Jun 29, 2009 11:56:53 AM

  16. Thanks jimmyboyo. One of the saddest stories I've read so far. If true, I hope the power players at AEG and the Nation of Islam get jail time.

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Jun 29, 2009 12:08:07 PM

  17. @Bobby: I'm a licensed psychotherapist. As part of my training I worked for two years with sex offenders, specifically with adolescents who molested pre-pubescent children. I have clinical experience working with sexual predators and professional knowledge about the subject of child molestation. I am not a "victim of the sensational news outlets and rag mags".

    Bobby, pedophiles engage in an activity called 'grooming' in order to gain the trust of the child, and the child's parents, so the sexual abuse can begin. Grooming behaviors include taking potential victims on special outings, giving them gifts, showing lots of attention. Another way pedophiles groom their potential victims is by acquiring objects such as toys, video games, etc...that are age-inappropriate for the pedophile, but which a child would love and then inviting the child to use the object of interest. Now would be a great time for me to remind you that Michael Jackson built a giant amusement park and petting zoo on his estate (which he named "Neverland"--as in the place where little boys never grow up!) in order to entertain his child 'friends'. He is shown in documentary footage taking a kid (who later accused him of molestation) on a shopping spree at FAO Schwartz. It is all behavior that strongly suggests Jackson was grooming these, and likely other, kids. And please don't say "Well, he was rich. Taking the kid on a shopping spree was nothing to him." There are loads of rich people in this world--many of them wealthier than Michael Jackson--but they don't run around taking other people's children on shopping sprees.

    Also, pedophiles target children who are vulnerable. The child in the documentary, the one who later accused Jackson of molestation had cancer when Jackson met him (Jackson paid for his medical treatment). During the time the sexual abuse allegedly took place, the child's parents were going through an acrimonious divorce with the father unable to see the children because he had been charged with spousal abuse and child cruelty. If that's not a vulnerable child, I don't know what is.

    Regarding your statement "Nothing was EVER proven, that's why Michael never went to jail.": Yes, and O.J. was acquitted at trial which means he had nothing whatsoever to do with the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

    @Wes: No one "...created an awful exception just for (Jackson) which allowed 'prior bad acts' to be admitted as evidence in court..." California Evidence Code 1108 allows prosecution to demonstrate a pattern of behavior by introducing 'prior bad acts' as evidence only during trials for sex crimes. This was in place before the Jackson trial.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 29, 2009 12:18:02 PM

  18. "I had started my investigation convinced that Jackson was guilty. By the end, I no longer believed that.

    I could not find a single shred of evidence suggesting that Jackson had molested a child. But I found significant evidence demonstrating that most, if not all, of his accusers lacked credibility and were motivated primarily by money."

    This has been precisely my experience. There IS a reason 12 white jurors from a conservative area unanimously found Jackson not guilty on all counts. When you actually examine the evidence, it becomes clear that not only are the accusations not credible, but they are clearly motivated by a desire for money.

    The Arvisos were laughably unbelievable in court. I remember they came out with an entire timeline of claims, and when it was shown to be impossible due to other circumstances, they simply changed it. They changed their story every day. The events, the timeline, everything. They added things as time went on. They were, by the end, more of a joke than Jackson seemed to be at the beginning.

    I'm actually glad in a way that it all went to trial in 2005, and that they put all their cards on the table. To me, it was closest Jackson ever came to being completely vindicated.

    Jackson did have an obsession with regaining his childhood, hence his obsession with the Peter Pan story and 'Neverland' theme park. But that is not evidence that he's a child molester. We all know he was insane and a 'freak.' That does not make him guilty. When you examine the cases, the evidence is not there, aside from the circumstantial "oh he's weird and likes kids" stuff.

    Has anyone here ever been accused of something they were innocent of, but everyone assumed they were guilty because of other circumstances and no one cared to look at the actual evidence? Its a truly awful feeling.

    Posted by: Wes | Jun 29, 2009 12:34:08 PM

  19. PETER,

    how common is it for the pedophile to want to "be a child" himself? Is that a rare type of pedophilia? In the accusations against Michael Jackson was there ever evidence that actual sexual contact took place between him and the boys? There have been great artist (Charlie Chaplin, Roman Polaski, Woody Allen) who have been denounced by many for their sexual attraction to underage people. Some have been punished, some haven't. We may find their private behavior dispicable, but they are still admired for their artistry. And in Michael's case, it seemed only Americans were concerned with his alledged "crimes"--and it wasn't unanimous condmenation here.

    I hadn't been a Michael Jackson fan since the 1970s, but I believe he was a genius and one of the most important artist of the 20th Century. If his family and fans mourn his passing then so be it.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 29, 2009 12:47:06 PM

  20. Aside from comments about his father, I don't get how anyone can sit and judge how the other members of the family are "emotional" or "unemotional". Have YOU ever lost a close family member and then have to go on TV and make a statement? But then again, alot of people are heartless. My Dad died and I spent 24 hours getting home - arrived jetlagged and completely out of it emotionally - only to have someone that I "thought" was a close friend give me shit because I hadn't called an ex about it before running to catch a plane.


    Posted by: joren | Jun 29, 2009 1:19:07 PM

  21. NO amount of PSYCHO BABBLE CRAP is going to convince me that Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation.

    Posted by: sonnie | Jun 29, 2009 1:19:58 PM

  22. @PeterParker: you're wrong, of course. It was generally commented on widely at the time of the 2005 trial that the judge made an unprecedented ruling that allowed the earlier accusations to be admitted as "evidence", even though no crime was committed, Jackson was never arrested nor brought to trial and the original, alleged "victim" recanted. The earlier accusations were hearsay, which is NEVER permissible in court if they cannot be substantiated. Contrary to your erroneous statement, there was no "pattern". Of course, you'll regale us with your claims to be a "licensed psychotherapist", which I will assume is your way of shutting off all arguments against your ridiculous comments because you are an AUTHORITY. I'm a licensed driver but I'm no authority on cars so, please, give all of us a break. Michael Jackson was not a pedophile and no amount of "authoritative" parsing will change that.

    @Wes: you got everything right.

    Posted by: mike | Jun 29, 2009 1:21:45 PM

  23. Whether or not Michael ever sexually molested these children, he was very inappropriate and creepy with them. It was still wrong. There are rumors on the net that Jordan Chandler, MJ's first known victim, recanted, but I have yet to see any proof that he has actually recanted his story.

    Posted by: Matt | Jun 29, 2009 2:10:56 PM

  24. I'm lovin' the Diana Ross hair style Janet is wearing!

    Posted by: john in PA | Jun 29, 2009 2:48:51 PM

  25. @ MIKE: First of all, my mentioning the fact that I am a licensed psychotherapist who has worked with sex offenders is NOT my way of shutting off argument. I'm simply establishing that I have formal training in the treatment of sex offenders who molested their victims as well as two years of experience treating that population. In addition to treating these clients, I was also part of a team that advised the courts regarding whether or not each client was rehabilitated and ready to end their probation. As a result of my training and experience, I have more knowledge of the issue than most mental health professionals and certainly more than the general population (who, I would assume, make up 99.99999% of the other people who post here on towleroad including you, Mike). Like any professional, I am simply stating my qualifications prior to offering my opinion. Anyone, including you, is free to disagree with me, but I would hope that you would have more to back up your argument than 'gut feeling'.

    Regarding my comment to Wes: please go back and re-read it.

    Wes wrote: "They even created an awful exception just for him, which allowed "prior bad acts" to be admitted as evidence in court for an unrelated case, regardless of if you were ever actually charged with anything (which he wasn't)."

    In my response I did not weigh in on whether or not the judge was correct to allow the evidence into court, nor did I describe a pattern of previous events on the part of Michael Jackson. I simply stated that no exception was created for Jackson because Evidence Code 1108 had already been on the books before the Jackson trial and that the wording of CA Evidence Code 1108 allows prosecutors in sex crime cases in California to introduce testimony regarding previous behavior as evidence in order to establish that a defendant has exhibited a pattern of criminal behavior prior to the offense for which they are being tried. In fact, CA Evidence Code 1008 was enacted in 1995, ten years prior to Jackson's trial. It was upheld by the CA Supreme Court in 1999. The fairness of the law is debatable (it seems prejudicial and unfair to me), but the simple fact is that it was already in place and had been implemented in an earlier trial against a different defendant (and later unsuccessfully challenged) prior to Jackson's trial.

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 29, 2009 4:15:37 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Proponents and Opponents Mull Over Marriage Equality in New York« «