It can be said without much fear of contradiction that Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson's ex-wife and mother of his two oldest children, did not testify as expected over a total of about three hours Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.
Yesterday she identified herself as Deborah Rowe Jackson, but said she preferred "Ms. Rowe." Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen asked how she knew Jackson. She said, "We've been friends and we were married." When asked if they had ever lived together, she said, "We never shared a home."
Rowe said she her videotaped interview requested by the Jackson camp had not been scripted. "As Mr. Jackson knows, no one can tell me what to say. I speak my own mind. It was a cold interview, and I wanted to keep it that way."
Zonen asked her what she expected after she gave the interview. "To be reunited with the children and be reacquainted with their dad." Asked why she wanted to see Mr. Jackson again, she said, "He's my friend."
In early 2003 she received a call through the doctor who brought her together with Jackson. He told her that Jackson associate Marc Schaffel, an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, wanted to talk with her.
Mr. Jackson spoke briefly during that phone conversation. "He told me there was a bad video coming out and it was full of lies and would I help. I said, as always, yes. I asked him if he was OK. I was very upset."
"Did he tell you with any specificity what he wanted you to do?" asked prosecutor Zonen. "No," she said, there was "no quid pro quo." Asked why she would help Jackson, she said, "I promised him I would always be there for Michael and the children."
When Zonen asked Rowe if she always told the truth in the interview, she said "No." She said she didn't answer honestly when the interviewer asked her if Jackson had good parenting skills with their children. Asked why she didn't tell the truth, she said, "My personal life is my personal life and no one's business." She said her positive statements about Jackson's role with children were based on past experience. "I've seen him with kids the whole time I've known him," she said.
She resumed testimony this morning.
"What was your motivation to participate in the interview?" Zonen asked.
"To see my children." However, her request was not granted and she has not seen them since 1999.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bhw
She's a dingbat.
2 - Eric Olsen
It has always been a peculiar arrangement, hasn't it?
3 - bhw
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.
4 - Eric Olsen
or thinks she does
5 - bhw
Right -- she'll probably get nothing from him. But it's her own fault. She made the idiotic deal in the first place.
6 - Rich
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.
7 - adis
"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.
8 - Eric Olsen
I don't know if he should but he certainly may
9 - bhw
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.
10 - Mihos
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..
11 - Rich
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.
12 - Eric Olsen
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
13 - nick
yeah well, "strange" "weird" "normal", it is all a bit subjective isn't it ?
14 - Eric Olsen
live and let live, let the 1000 flowers bloom, but there is a line and this trial is about if the line was crossed
15 - Mihos
Marcel Marcieu; Charlie Chaplin, were they heterosexual?
16 - Eric Olsen
I don't know much about marcel, but I know Charlie liked MUCH younger women
17 - nick
What if they were not ?
18 - nick
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 !
19 - google
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.
20 - nick
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
21 - Mihos
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.
22 - RJ
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.
23 - Mihos
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.
24 - Eric Olsen
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.
25 - Mihos
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?