Gallery

[LoveNeedsExpression]

According to MJ's words to Bashir in the 2002 interview, he said he snatched Paris at birth with placenta on her, from the hospital. Back called Debbie "very greedy". What was MJ paying Debbie the millions for? I think for the right to raise the 2 kids by himself without her. He was afraid she would want them back at some point and wanted to eliminate that risk. She only offered to have the kids so he could be a daddy, not because she wanted kids. So if after the kids are pretty much old enough to legally choose who they want to be with, I think MJ would be fine with this, because hes experienced all the joys of fatherhood, and so they could never really be separated from their dad. If Debbie is experiencing some limelight right now, its because MJ is allowing it. And when her contribution is done, we wont be hearing from her again for a while. Seems to me the participants in this MJ hoax saga take their assigned turns.

Agreed!

[suspicious mind]

tom measurea voiced that he didn't think michael would have a problem with debbie connecting with her children. but then i get the feeling that tom is trying to maintain a certain distance from the whole thing , like he doesn' t want to know too much.
however the idea that back really didn't seem to like debbie makes me wonder about what has just transpired on twitter between her , pearl and u know who  :icon_e_wink: trying to remember if forum one ever voice any opinion at all on debbie.  :suspect:

[blankie]

For me is strange that Debbie who has always been reserved has publicly discussed with Pearl...  :icon_e_confused:

[applehead250609]

hmmmm I cant get my head around all this .... as Katherine is the legal guardian wouldnt she have to place, legally, Paris into this 'boarding school'? and wouldnt TJ have to ok it too? and when did Debbie Rowe start playing the over protective mother? has she actually any rights over Paris? seeing as mummy dearest sold those when the kids were babies? .... dont get me wrong im all for the children getting to know their mother it is their right ... but she seems to all of a sudden have the freedom to throw around her weight and suddenly play the devoted, fiercely protected mother  :icon_e_confused:

I'm with you on this Suzi  ;).
And since LoveNeedsExpression mentioned about Debbie's loyalty for MJ,I really have to wonder,what was she doing with Marc Scaffel in  2010  :icon_e_confused:  :icon_e_surprised:??.........because she said on the stand during 2005 trial ,that this guy was taking advantage of Michael and stealing from him in the millions  >:(  :LolLolLolLol:!!!!
Monkey business going downnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ..............................................  :icon_rolleyes:

[Rouxie]

Now i think Debbie is playing her turn in this hoax
Seriously Debbie isn't the Guardian , She can't sue anyone , only Ms.Katherine or T.J. Has the rights to do that.
So is it only talk talk to Scare the media from taking other photos ?? Like the Video "applehead250609" Posted they choose to
not post the photos because they were afraid of getting sued , and that what debbie wanted by saying this ? , Maybe
and why did she started all the getting in the picture as her protective mother , this KJ's work as far as i know ?!

[whatyourheartsays]

When she argued on twitter with Pearl, she also told her that she was using her kid's picture for some personnal benefit, using the pictures to make video she would sell.
Pearl said "you sold you kids for money" and she answered " YOU use my kids for money by selling videos and pictures of them"

I think it started from there cause i never heard Debbie complaining about this before on her page.