She's a dingbat.

It has always been a peculiar arrangement, hasn't it?

Yep.

It's fairly obvious that her testimony, like many others' in this trial, is tainted by circumstance: she has something to gain, access to her kids.

or thinks she does

Right -- she'll probably get nothing from him. But it's her own fault. She made the idiotic deal in the first place.

She may be a dingbat but she was on the button when she said the guy is surrounded by vultures.
Almost every witness the proecution has called has had an axe to grind with Jax, a reason to stitch him up.
No wonder the guy is wacko. Friends, family, employees - you'd never know who really cared for you and who was just out to get your money. And, failing that, get you.
I don't know whether he's a molester or not but would YOU want to be convicted of anything on the testimony of the type of people that have taken the witness stand against him?
I was disgusted when OJ got away with murder but I'll be just as disgusted if Jackon is convicted on the strength of the case that has so far been presented against him.
If this is all the other side have, the guy should walk.

"It's fairly obvious that her testimony, like many others' in this trial, is tainted by circumstance: she has something to gain, access to her kids."

Or she is one disaffected party in sneddons band who has a conscience.How about thinking that she is telling the truth now and that her previous views were engineered by sneddon and co or that they were taking advantage of an angry mother.

Eric, I know you are pushing the GUILTY VIEW but i hope you may see reason to think in other directions.

I don't know if he should but he certainly may

Rich, I agree that the case against MJ is weak this time around. It seems that the '93 case was probably their best shot at convicting him of molestation.

All the prosecution witnesses in this case are incredible, literally. They don't have one impeccable witness of whom the jury could say "that person hasn't been proven to be a liar about something." If this is the best the prosecution can do, then the jury has plenty of reasonable doubt.

I also am not a fan at all of past, unsubstantiated allegations being brought into this case. As with all other alleged crimes, the prosecution should have to prove that Jackson committed this one crime on the basis of the facts in this case alone. It's not even like he'd been convicted of another crime and that was entered into evidence. All this past stuff is just what people have said, not proved.

It may seem highly improbably to some of you, but perhaps Jackson is as his two former wives have asserted, a heterosexual with a peter pan syndrome..

And if he is an innocent man, someone with a Peter Pan syndrome; a guy who is not a pedo but who genuinely loves to be around kids and enjoys being a child again -- you'd have to feel desperately sorry for him in this situation, at risk of being jailed, and with reputation in shreds. Really, how awful to have been put through all this if he truly is blameless. Innocent or guilty, either way you look at it, he's lost a great deal already.

I am not "pushing" any view - I do my best to give the facts, and I give my opinion sometimes on those facts.

mihos, anything is possible, but if he is a heterosexual he has a very strange way of showing it

yeah well, "strange" "weird" "normal", it is all a bit subjective isn't it ?

live and let live, let the 1000 flowers bloom, but there is a line and this trial is about if the line was crossed

Marcel Marcieu; Charlie Chaplin, were they heterosexual?

I don't know much about marcel, but I know Charlie liked MUCH younger women

What if they were not ?

hey bhw, when you say
"It seems that the '93 case was probably their best shot at convicting him of molestation."
It may seem so precisely because that case was never brought to court !
I think this case is now over. Tje defense has not started its case yet and the case is already in tatters.
Can't wait for the next album and the next world tour !

It is all about extorting money from Jackson. Everyone of the witnesses testified that they saw Jackson do something illegal, yet they all continued to work for him and let their kids near him. Give me a break.

Enjoy this one ;-)

"At this point, the case is looking like a smear campaign. It's a legal free-for-all."
Former Prosecutor, Laurie Levenson, Loyola Law School Professor

The anointed media "experts could not have imagined, even in the worst of possible scenarios, that District Attorney Tom Sneddon's case would sink into this quagmire of libellous quicksand. If this isn't a smear campaign, then where are the legions of outraged, child-abuse moral advocates crying out for a public hanging? Were this a legitimate and plausible, circumstantial case, wouldn't one think that the media would have at least that to advertise? Something doesn't seem right with this disturbing snapshot. History has showcased to us, on too many occasions, the consequences where the partnership between state and media is blatantly obvious. It's time for all of us to step out of our fantasy bubbles and acknowledge, at this moment in history, our civic institutions are at a dangerous precipice. The graveyards are rumbling with warning sirens from our ancestors who suffered mercilessly under such partnerships.

The ad homonym attacks against Michael Jackson and anyone who dares to support him have intensified as establishment media shifts its tactics to save face and restore its crumbling credibility. Let us not forget that America is a nation born out of its distrust of the absolute power of the State, as well as the interference of the State in the lives of private citizens. If we are living in a society where cases such as this are being tried, with these poorly coached witnesses, then let us confess that we do not have any real educational standards. We have neither the moral base to assert legal standards, nor do we have the common, decent values to dialogue about morality.

Are we to believe that this kind of conduct is acceptable in our courts? Is this something to take pride in? Is this what we salute to? What Grand Jury testimony or evidence rationally convinced Judge Melville that this was adequate enough to warrant a trial? Where is the accountability?

It is a façade, and no law professor can dare to rationalize otherwise. Yet, the media have rationalized, haven't they? Witness after witness, the media bronzes into headlines carefully coached slogans or statements, yet, leaves out the context and trivializes the impact of the contradictions. Anyone who studies some history be it political, economic or legal, would not be surprised to find out that this selective historiography is a common occurrence.

Does anyone think that journalists report exactly what they see without bias, concision, or exclusion? Most Americans don't, and most scholars have confirmed that. The rampant censorship disguised as political correctness across University campuses was bound to filter into institutional mass media. Is it because Michael Jackson asserted his right not to be a typical icon that enrages so many? Chose not to be that stereotypical idol that has been marketed to us as cool and has branded our psyche. Michael Jackson has chosen to be self-made rather than be manufactured. He certainly doesn't solicit public opinion to define who he is. Does he?

Reading the headlines alone would make one think that Tom Sneddon has a strong case, along with credible witnesses and damaging testimony. The reality is that there is no timetable for these alleged molestations and we have a bunch of key witnesses who are strapped for cash and have every reason to be lured into suddenly remembering new testimony. How I wish there were an agency, not unlike the Consumer Protection Agency, for journalists and pundits. There, a viewer or a reader could check a credibility rating and compare the lying averages. Now would be a good time to set that up.

Let's make one thing clear: the free-marketplace of ideas is a battleground for control over the spheres of influence of the mind. Just like we expect a juror to deliberate through a logical process when rendering a verdict, everyone needs to learn how to manage information and take into account a narrator's biases, agendas and vendettas. It is a war and the consequences are as fatal. You think Michael Jackson is guilty? Examine the nature of that claim. Are the sources credible? Is their even quasi-circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Think of how easily a jealous or vindictive person could implicate you using the same standard you think is "fair game" by which judge to Michael. Is this a standard you can live with?
The grave consequences being showcased to the world are much bigger than Michael Jackson. Whether one likes him or not, at this point in the trial, is irrelevant. To look the other way at this Jacobin version of justice clearly highlights that institutional journalists are successfully doing their job in nurturing ignorance and managing opinions.

In America, are the real prosecutors, law professors and journalists ready to step forward and bring to justice those who have maliciously molested the constitution and have perverted their duties as officers of the law? This is the new frontier.


John Karrys

I suppose it is less scintillating when Caucasians wear white face to enhance their
larger than life personas than when dark skinned artists do. Japanese Kabuki wearers are near unrecognizeable in makeup. I wonder what ever happened to Billy Thomas?
Was he heterosexual?

Charlie Chaplin was he a pedaphile or was he tar and feathered for polticial expediency during a trying time in American history for poorly understood reasons we would prefer to forget now?

It wouldn't matter if Jackson were actually homosexual save for the unfortunate fact that so many high profile pundits making pointed declarations against the possibility that he is heterosexual. When Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe have testified to that end they are roundly ridiculed or labeled as liars.
Yet Jackson's persona is not very different in form from that of Chaplin nor Marceau who he has obviously studied.
The major difference is that Jackson is not Caucasian and his appearance is alarming for that reason.
But please don't let my mention of the race issue suggest that I attribute everything wrong with Jackson to race.
Im interested to learn
why the double standard exists and why
the average person cannot recognize the
special discrimination and prejudice that precedes any facts when luminaries with such enormous profiles are described in their own times.
They threaten the balance of politics these monarchs of jesters.

Look, the guy SLEEPS WITH KIDS. OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS. IN THE SAME BED. REPEATEDLY.

This dude ain't normal. He might be innocent of child molestation, or he might not. But he is without question a seriously deranged individual nonetheless.

I don't know that he sleeps with other people's children in the same bed. I know that that is what alot of people are repeating. But from the transcripts of the Bashir documentary this is not the case.

Do children sleep in the same enormous suite with Jackson in the room? Yes evidentally. And from the reports of people who have spent alot of time there Jackson's suite is a two floor wing with many beds and separate bathrooms. His own children's bed rooms are on the second floor of the wing adjacent to the four thousand square foot suite.

Sleeping together in a one bedroom apartment with some one's kids on adjacent couches after the superbowl Ive been there several times. And then during skiing trips I have woken up with other people's kids crashed all over the place sometimes but not generally their parents who take a guest room. And the younger men and bachelors often wake up on the couch in the living rooms or on the floor of the study beside some one else's kids. Wine, scotch and or cocoa are often involved together with movie marathons, video game competitions and skiing or snowshoeing.
Im just trying to make the point that
inferences can be made with half or quarter of the facts. But there has been more often than not so much bias in coverage of the trial- for example the omission of the size or layout of this suite incorrectly referred to as Jackson's bed room that people as yourself get a different picture in their heads.

If jackson is suffering from cancer or some other disease his time spent with children is even more understandable.

The hip hop video and girls gone wild commericals might have us all hood winked into believing that everyone is a sexual immoralist. It isnt the case in most people I know and fortunately most people I know are also alien to sexual predators. As a parent and someone whose family are not American, we come from north Africa, sharing beds is what people just do.
So perhaps Im prejudiced to underestimate the significance of the be sharing arrangements.
but I was born in the USA and have children of my own and lots of friends with children, extended aquaintences passing through with kids and teenagers
all use my isolate house as a crash pad when it suits them.

We just dont live in that world of predators and prey so maybe my mind is more open. If i lived or grew up in an American city perhaps I would feel differently.

do you believe June Chandler's assertions that MJ and Jordy slept together in his room "over 30 times," a room that only had one bed? How would you characterize that relationship? It sure sounds romantic to me.

I don't believe June Chandler and yet her testimony is deeply disturbing. Alot of questions come to mind. The first that comes to mind is Jordan Chandler's screenwriting career. Evidentally he was one of the writers of the Men in Tights screenplay for Mel Brooks awful Robin Hood saga. Screenwriting is a time consuming process. It is plausible that the two of them spent their time together watching films and writing together.
The reason I don't believe Chandler is she argued against child molestation until her husband won custody.
Additionally, she spent a year or more with Jackson and one of Jackson's siblings intimated that the sexual relationship was actually between Jackson and June, something the former husband and stepfather of Jordan asserted in his divorce case.
Not incidentally Jordan lives about twenty five minutes from Jackson in Santa Barbara. He may be testifying.
The question is for prosecution or defense?

It's curious that the title of Miss Castaway a feature film is credited as being written by Stoller when this is the same synopsis mentioned in testimony as the project being written by Jackson and Chandler.

I do think that those kids one day will come up and say "Look this was all rubbish. We had a laugh didn't we and the best part is that all of you nutters believed us ha aha hahaa ha"

I WAS bigfoot. I would have kept it my secret but my dead brother jeb drank all our poker money

dude, you're hairy

I sleep with my son every single night, but he's MY SON, AND HE'S 16 months, and HE'S BREASTFEEDING.

So it's not so much that sleeping with children in itself is particularly creepy, it's sleeping with other people's children, who aren't breastfeeding and are big enough to require their own bed.

That's when it gets creepy for me.

yawn yawn

I love the latest scandal. Books depicting nude boys!
One of them is a photo documentary of the film Lord of the Flies and another a book about agression in boys..both gifts by a woman attempting to land Jackson into putting up monies for a film based on the premise of Peter Pan's lost boys of neverland.

aren't they just desperate ?

In MJ's videos, he was always grabbing his dick. Maybe this was to make sure it was still there, and not stuck in some 10-year old's asshole?

Debbie Rowe cut a deal in 2001 that she gets 1 million dollars per year, for 10 years. She purportedly didn't get her one million for 2005, and if Michael goes in the slammer, there goes her 5 million dollars.

No wonder Debbie went soft on Michael, and undoubtedly changed her testimony from what she initially told the prosecution.

If she is willing to sell her children for 10 million, why not bend the truth a bit for 5 million?

Didn't Debbie Rowe strike anybody out in
blogland as being kind of pathetic and
creepy? The way she was talking up MJ as
being a great father even though he will
not even let her near the kids? Weird.

She reminded me of one of those people
in school who hang out with the "cool"
people even though all the cool people
do is make fun of them.But they are so
afraid that the in crowd won't like them
so they let them make them the butt of
all their jokes, pranks,etc.

Anyway that is what came to mind after I
heard about her testimony praising M.J.
yesterday.Like I said something was not
right with her.

Yet if she had been hurling abuse and said what you wanted to hear, you would have thought that she was in her right mind, wouldn't you just ?
You would have liked to see another Janet Arvizo, right ?
Thank goodness the specimen is unique !

Since Saturday is Presupposition Day
I'll posit:

Debbie Rowe was a surrogate mother for Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Joe Jackson. She was obliged to take medications during the pregnancies to insure that the developing fetus and mother not become infected.
This risk had a fiduciary value for all parties concerned.

Can any one of you prove without a reasonable doubt that the above theory is not fact?

The burden of proof is on you in this instance because your current assumption has Jackson buying little white children for a sick perversion.

she is creepy as hell and many have said she is obsessed with MJ still. I think her motive for testifying the way she did is as simple as wanting to have access to her kids without having to keep fighting for custody in court.

I think she was artifically inseminated with someone other than Jacskon's sperm, then bascially toessed away. She is nothing but a brood mare

Why is it so difficult for people to give credit to Rowe a former nurse practicioner of physician of Jackson? If she has been helping Jackson with the nightmare of his physical ailments for more than twenty years, don't you think perhaps empathy has its own entitlements?
Perhaps, Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe know Jackson personally, spent time in his realm and have come to their conclusions about the human being based on their own experiences?
WHat if Jackson is dying?
Don/t you think vultures might not circle in tighter and tighter circles?

and what evidence do you have that Jackson is not the biological father?
Before you start judging the children on their appearance, and you've never had a close look, have a look at OJ Simpson's straight haired children.
Google Vanity Denise Mathews and Salli Richardson for examples of Black Indians born with straight hair and Amerindian features leading many to perceive them as light skinned or white looking black women when in fact they are true to their true ethnic identities. Lisa Marie is the biological mother of those children and Jackson the father.
He is remarried now to their Rwandan nannie.

Eric again I'd say that you'd say something totally different if she had testified the way you wish she had.
So much bad faith in everything that you say. You are ready to belive people who sold their stories to tabloids for hundreds of thousands but not to believe his ex wife.
Who is creepy as hell is this story ?