July 2nd, 2009
09:45 PM ET

Live Blog from the Anchor Desk 07/02/09

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/01/02/liveblogfinal.copy.jpg]

We have information that might shed new light on perhaps the central unanswered question in Michael Jackson's death. Was the "King of Pop" using powerful, potentially deadly, surgical anesthetics to get to sleep? Don't miss our exclusive 360° investigation.

Want to know what else we're covering tonight? Read EVENING BUZZ

Scroll down to join the live chat during the program. It's your chance to share your thoughts on tonight's headlines. Keep in mind, you have a better chance of having your comment get past our moderators if you follow our rules.

Here are some of them:

1) Keep it short (we don't have time to read a "book")
2) Don't write in ALL CAPS (there's no need to yell)
3) Use your real name (first name only is fine)
4) No links
5) Watch your language (keep it G-rated; PG at worst - and that includes $#&*)

And take a look at our live web camera from the 360° studio. Watch the WEBCAM

Filed under: Live Blog • T1
soundoff (378 Responses)
  1. Greenville Concern Mother

    Regarding Debbie Rowe, Would she consider getting custody of the children without any rights to the money left by Michael Jackson?

    What judge would give a mother custody of children who only looks at them as a $ sign? You don't have to speculate, yes she may love them in her own way but I don't feel she would be coming forth in this manner if there was no money and the fact he intentionally left her out of his will.

    I feel his Will should be honored by the judge.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  2. Samantha

    how dare she want custody now
    she signed her parental rights away
    she hasent been in these kids lives
    she just wants the money

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  3. tanita

    I really dont think that Debbie deserve to have the children's custody since she gave up that right since Micheal was alive for 8.5 M. she sold her kids. Catherine will be a wonderful mother to the kids.
    therefore lets just abide by the will that M J left.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  4. bea

    Seems clear to me that the reason Jackson married Debbie Rowe is because the law didn't allow him to pay her so much money just to be a surrogate. It's against public policy. But the law does allow a divorce settlement. So they had a sham marriage, she was a surrogate, and got PAID.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  5. David

    What civil rights is being taken from Michael Jackson.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  6. Tim

    Debbie who ??, Out of the picture for so many years, sold her kids, and now that she is not in the will, of course she will want them $$$$, What about child number 3 ?

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  7. Vicki, Canada

    I don't think Debie Rowe should get custody of these kids. It's all about money...she didn't care about them before. Why now??

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  8. Dawn


    A Mom is more than just biology. It is Ms. Rowes's timing that is of concern. If it were about the kids, why wasn't there a history of her attempts to be their "Mom". If she has their best interest at heart and is not just interested in the money or her own fame...let some time pass, let them grieve and bury their dad surrounded by the people they know, love and trust. That is what a Mom would do....

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  9. Vivian

    Let's bury Michael. Katherine should get the kids and keep them all together. Debbie should really think about what is best for all kids. Coming into their lives now will be an additional shock to them. You don't want to separate the 2 kids for their brother Blanket.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  10. Renee

    Happy Weekend Erica and all! Lucky to be on vacation all week! Many thanks to our troops for keeping us safe!

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  11. Nicky

    I believe custody of Michael's children should go to his mother, and if anything happens to her, his sister and heartbeat Janet should take control, but debbie can get to visit them and play a role in there life. it would be in the best interest that the children get to know n bond with their mother as they grief their beloved father.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  12. Elizabeth Martinez

    Debbie Rowe seems to have given up on "her children" on two occasions by giving them to Michael Jackson. One must ask was it for money? Did she sell her children? How can a court find her to be in the best interest of the children when she sold them. I believe the children should be with Katherine Jackson as Michael had wished. Debbie Rowe is just seeing dollar signs.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  13. Phyllis Royster

    Hi Anderson,
    Debbie Rowe is all about the money. I think the kids should remain with there loving grandmother. A person in which they are fimiliar with. Debbie Rowe would have never given up custody if she wasn't all about the money, come on Anderson. A blind man could see that.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  14. Malana

    Let the children decide where they should live!

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  15. Tammy, Houma, LA

    What is better for these kids, going with who is comfortable and known, or going with the woman who simply gave them uterus space for nine months?

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  16. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    Anderson, why, why why are you giving Sharpton air time? He's using this for his own face time and gain.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  17. Sharon Hastings

    Everything I hear about Michael makes me wonder what in the world happened to him as a child. I bet Sanjay Gupta is as shocked and surprised as the rest of us regarding the traveling I.V. sleep service.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  18. Annette

    Debbie Rowe only want those kids becasue of the money. she sold her kids for 8.1 million, isn't that enough. She like all the rest of the circling judases who are looking for their 30 pieces of silver.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  19. judeth

    I think Debbie Rowe wants to the two eldest children for the money and the publicity.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  20. Tina F

    I don't think Debbie Row should get them children she gave up her rights when she took the money for her kids. But as a mother your kids don't have a $$ on their heads.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  21. Jasmine

    Why is it always when someone dies, Al Sharpton always finds a way to make it a spectacle on him?

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  22. Ginger Crosbie

    Debbie Rowe sold her children for 8.5 million. She waited to see what he left her in his Will, and he left her nothing, so she wants the kids for all their money. She's disgusting.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  23. Jessica Ezeanya

    I do not feel she is going after the money. She has tried to seek custody twice before.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  24. Michelle, DE

    Debbie Rowe sold her kids to their father for 8.5 million dollars! What kind of mother would agree to not have contact or even pictures of her kids for money! She doesn't deserve to have those kids. They don't know her. Poor children. They (the children) should make her answer why she would do that to them. Every child needs their mother, but alls she thought about was the money. She's scum.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  25. Christina

    It is difficult to get a true read on how Debbie Rowe is viewed by the Jackson family. Joe Jackson basically ruled her out, but not many folks pay attention to what Joe has to say. Jermaine seemed to imply that she had no chance of getting custody. It would be interesting to know what the deal is with Debbie and the Jacksons.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  26. delia

    I cannot get enough news on Michael Jackson!!! We love you! Debbie Row needs to be happy with the 8.5 million she settled for in 2003! She is a greedy selfish person!!!!

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  27. Shelia

    The children have already lost their father. It would be a shame to lose each other. Debbie Rowe should not be allowed to get custody of 2 of the children.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  28. Jo B

    why would the courts give custody to someone who gave up custody and called her own kids "his kids" on national tv. I have 2 kids myself and am divroced and would never think of signing my kids away doesnt matter if its their father or not I gave my kids life I want to see em grown up she just passed em off for 8.5 million bucks if she gets custody I think I might literally lose faith in the courts. I understand its their mother but the kids are 11 and 12 and she hasnt had custody they dont even know their own mother she basically gave em away.. I feel so bad for these kids cause all it sounds like to me is that she wants the money that they inherit. Poor poor children.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  29. sharon

    It seems strange to me that all of a sudden Debbie Rowe is interested in custody of the children. Where was she all those years before?

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  30. Victoria

    AC – I am glad that the doctor did not capitalize on this matter, as has so many in speaking with Dr. Gupta. He is correct. It's not the time. Who cares about the drugs now. That's all sensationalism for you! I don't appreciate it. Talk about his music or his home life with his friends and family. You are all speculating and trying to taint his life.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  31. Shari from Atlanta

    Yes, it is about money. Why would Debbie Rowe want to break up the three children?? That would be the most cruel thing she could do. Those children need to be raised together in a loving environment and Katherine Jackson can provide that!!

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  32. tanyia from LA.

    Debbie Rowe is only after money. If she really loved those kids she would have been in those kids lives years ago.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  33. christine

    i feel also that the women who want's cusdy of kids isn all for the money

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  34. Rose from Muscoy, Calif

    Can anyone tell us if Joe and Keatherine are still together, because Joe is living in Las Vegas, and wife here in Los Angeles?

    July 2, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
  35. Ruma

    Can we stop with the speculation? Hasn't media made a circus of his life already? Even MJ was entitled to his privacy.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  36. Maureen T, Canada

    Fit at fifty?! Michael looked great!...Andy you look pretty fit at 42 as well!

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  37. ryan

    Fist off, R,I,P micheal, I think that the children mother should not get to keep them because that's what micheal paid her for

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  38. Nancy

    Since Michael was covered by insurance for the tour by AEG, who will get the money from this policy and how much?

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  39. MARCIA

    i think Debbie needs to talk with mikes mom to see if she could be a part of there lives let his mom raise them that was his wishes but keep joe jackson far away from them kids

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  40. MAG

    RIP MJ The world has lost another great musical person. Say Hello to Elvis, Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Keith Moon, John Bonham, John Lennon, McKinley Morganfield (Muddy Waters), Kurt Cobain, Duane Allman, "Ronnie" Van Zant, Steve Gaines, Cassie Gaines, Ray Charles, and George Harrison. What a wonderful group of people to be with! I hope you all find Love, Peace, Hope and Joy in Heaven. There must be some great live jams going on up there. MAG

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  41. Cara

    For Debbie Rowe to come out now, it is only about the money.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  42. Chris Sosa - Boston, MA

    Who're you kidding, Anderson? You'll be that fit or more at 50. 🙂

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  43. Patty Brauer, KY

    I think Jackson looks fine and healthy.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  44. Edwin

    Mike left those kids with his mom, but i'm sure he would never want them around JOSEPH!

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  45. Benetta Abrams

    I believe Rowe is after the money because if she really cared about the emotional state of the children should would leave them with Katherine Jackson, the grandmother who is extremely close to them. They have suffered enough.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  46. Jackie

    I truly believe the children should be with Micheal's mother......their natural mother doesn't deserve to have custody, she was paid well for this and ACCEPTED the money......need I say more!!

    Before anyone says anything about his rehearsals, Micheal is 50 years old he is not going to do the moves that he used to do. I don't do the things I did when I was 30 either.....

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  47. Tina

    Agree BettyAnn

    July 2, 2009 at 10:13 pm |
  48. christine

    let the family be able to have peace

    July 2, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
  49. Gloria, Brooklyn, NY

    It is about with money with Rowe. If she was really about the children, she would have been with the children everyday of their life.

    July 2, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
  50. samantha

    how dare Debbie Rowe come back and say she wants custody now? she signed her parental rights
    hasent been in there lives for how long now??
    he already paid how much money does she want now

    July 2, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8