Today on Blogcritics
Home » Michael Jackson Trial: Explosive Oral Testimony

Michael Jackson Trial: Explosive Oral Testimony

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Tuesday, a former maid, the mother of one of his accusers, testified she saw the cleanly Jacko shower with an 8 year old boy, Wade Robson, who is now a choreographer.

Yesterday court was recessed while Jackson attended the funeral of Johnnie Cochran Jr.

But today the bunker buster bomb hit: Neverland nightshift security guard from ’91 and ’94, Ralph Chacon, told the jury he heard Jackson shower with, then saw him caress, kiss passionately, then perform oral sex on a young boy in late-’92 or early-’93.

“I was thinking: ‘What’s going on in there? Grown man in the shower with a boy… it wasn’t right. I saw Mr Jackson caressing the boy’s hair, he was kissing him,” said Chacon.

“He put the little boy’s penis in his mouth.”

“Did you actually see that?” prosecutor Tom Sneddon asked.

“Yes.” And he added that Jackson’s hands were “all over” the 9 or 10 year-old boy’s body, the boy who won the $20+ million settlement from Jackson in ’94.

Chacon is one of five former employees to unsuccessfully sue the King of Pop for wrongful termination, who were then successfully countersued by Jackson for court costs.

In cross-examination, lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau asked, “This is a good way to get even with him, isn’t it, sir?”

Sneddon objected; the judge sustained.

Powered by

About Eric Olsen

  • mihos

    Im not a jackson fan, don’t buy or listen to his music and detest jackson syncophantical groupies.
    But this trial is a bunch of dog shit.
    Everyone smells its though they aren’t absolutely certain if they tracked it into the house and nobody puts nose to the ground to “do the rounds’ to diligently find out who has tracked the offending calamity in with their shoes.
    The salacious gossip reported as news receives three times the coverage as any cross-examination that reveals how transparent the motives of these accusers have been to date.
    As long as the dog poo isn’t on your shoes and the booze is free, why worry about it? The party continues without one person stopping the music long enough to track down the party or parties that have tracked the filth into the house and no one but the house owner is going to be responsible for cleaning up the carpet and furniture.

    My friends and colleagues have been covering the case for next years college
    level courses on the American justice system and media course.

    One glaring issue that comes to the fore
    in examination of the recorded data collected from media reporting and print both electric and paper is that racism actually is alive and well in this case.

    Even Dan Abrams a veritable corner stone of objective ethicals in reporting took an incredulous tone over jackson’s black luminary posit ( itself another example of stupidity on the part of jackson’s hubris inflated persona).

    Regardless of jackson’s appearance, he is black. Both his parents are black and all of his siblings are black. Most of the people who we have documented as consistently contributing to his musical ambitions are also black.
    What is more, we found both his parent’s parent’s surnames listed in the Daws Report of Freedmen and Black Indians.

    Evidentally both sides of the family are primarily Black Indian and both sides of the family were rejected from Indian settlements though some were slaves of Cherokee or Chocktaw because of the appearance of the families clearly belied generations of Indian African intermarriage.
    The most compelling information gleaned over the last few months concerns the presence of partial albinism ( vitiligo) in upwards of five percent of relocated Chickasaw Indians and Black Indians from the state of Alabama where Mrs. Jackson’s family came from. In those days, this condition of vitiligo was considered a mark of inferiority and as a sign of race mixing between whites and blacks, an intolerable event in the minds of a majority of whites that had never been exposed to blacks or Indians and the smaller minorty that had.

    Regardless, vitiligo and complete albinism is a very common occurence in many African regions including those that exploited their population for the slave trade. The condition when present in dark skinned and Asiatic peoples has
    resulted in unique forms of discrimination often from the individual with the condition- the individuals own family. In poor, illiterate communities this condition would present a real problem for Black Indian families obliged to march the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. As a condition that tends to behave symptomatically to irreversable
    immune system problems, the de pigmentation tends to increase exponentially under stress and illness.
    A person with a few white, half dollar sized marks on their chest might have their entire upper body depigmented three months later as they marched through inclimate conditions and starvation to Indian territory, only to be turned away because of the condition.

    That the Jackson family as a whole are neither Black nor White but persecuted for their natural features, largely North American Indian, ( court tv and fox tabloid reporting discussing high cheekbones and reduced lips etc) reveals the level of blatant, unambiguous presuppositional bias against non caucasians still acceptable in this country.
    This case has already been tried in the court of public opinion, something the overzealous prosecutors are betting on.

    I don’t know if jackson is a child predator. The manner in which the case is being reported and the information gleaned by our student interns and our group of academics with no special interest in the case or jackson, point to the not likely deduction.

    The visceral reaction most people have for jackson is telling.
    If the person is white, middle class and
    educated like most of the professional reporters involved in the perpetuation of salacious rumours, it is understandable. Because they themselves and their parents likely abhor racism they can’t imagine that anything they could possibly be engendered in their minds could be racist.

    So trying jackson for looking like a white woman when he is supposed to remain a cute little pickaninny like superstar Gary Coleman or Emmanual Lewis
    is acceptable.
    There is an underlying resentment that at least two generations have for jackson’s obvious physical transformation.
    The reporting suggests to us that the jacksons never mattered enough to the white establishment to enjoy the sort of quality journalism affored to white peers of jackson, for example Kurt Russell.
    So most Americans don’t have any idea who Jackson has ever been except what the media saw fit to project of the jacksons that was considered socially acceptable of a black person in the early seventies and later in the safe eighties.
    When Nancy Grace reports on national television that jackson has never had a girl friend and never had special relationships with black boys suggests to us that she knows everything she knows about jackson by reading tabloids and celebrity rag magazines. She followed his career through media.
    when she and her colleagues repeat time and again that there is something unseemly about jackson’s relationship with young men and adolescent boys while simultaneously unerreporting and generally omitting that he enjoys heterosexual adult magazines including barely legal- suggests at least in my mind that he is wise to not have sleepovers with young girls.

    Anyway, the whole case seems like a mockery of the justice system and is more about the aggrendizement of overzealous prosecutors that want soe claim to fame than child molestation.
    anyone who has seen jackson perform for even ten minutes knows that his sexual appetite if he has one- would hardly be contained by reach arounds and tickling bouts wiht under age boys.
    There is no logic being applied here, only the racist ideology of a mindset that believes black people are oversexed subhumans who rape children.
    Jackson’s appearance is proof in their convoluted thinking that he is guilty because he doesnt appear to want to look like a black man anymore.

    Any of these court reporters could have done the small amount of homework we have managed over the last few months and provided the public with a very different coverage that didn’t dispossess jackon’s family from their inheritence and didn’t assault the entire world with seedy unsubstantiated rumours.

    What is jackson is dying of AIDS or some other immune system disorder Lupus or hepatitus or all the above?
    He could be blackmailed easily by anyone who knew why he spends so much time at the doctors office and why he wears diapers. They would also know if they cared, that this trial would likely kill him but not his money.

  • Joe

    Well, I don’t know about any of that, but that sure is a hell of a headline, Eric.

  • Eric Olsen

    um, okay, some very interesting bits and pieces of information spread among broad generalizations. You’ve done all this research? What have you learned? That might be helpful in analyzing your allegations and dismissals.

  • jane


    In cases concerning alleged child abuse the concern is always about the child’s welfare.

    It is not uncommon for prosecuters and defense alike to bring up habitual behavior to demonstrate the personality of their clients, whether it be good or bad.

    Jackson has had a long history of being involved in inappropriate behavior with young boys and, as far as I can see, has gotten away with it because of his fame or through buying people off.

    Quite honestly, I do not think that this case can be wholly reduced to a simple argument about race or the desire for police and prosecuters to seek fame.

    I believe it has everything to do with stopping a clearly disturbed 46 year old man harming more young boys in his quest for personal pleasure.

    And, as an aside, as I have seen Jackson’s physique and face change via multiple plastic surgeries not related to his supposed vitiligo, I have wondered: If this is what is happening on the outside what is happening on the inside?

  • mihos

    Rereading what I wrote above, I realized again why it is I never write on the fly especially distracted with babysitting duties.
    I’ll apologize for my rambling typos.
    Though still distracted with young people, i’ll attempt to clarify a few points. Really, the objective here is to
    just really make a concerted effort to
    revitalize intelligent (sic) writers and readers to use their critical thinking skills and make some noise with it.

    The research end of this project is compiled by four student interns. Their responsibility is to record or make arrangements to procure news reports and court tv reports covering the jackson case.
    The second group collect internet reports.

    The responsibility I volunteered for, focuses on the origin of the Jackson family, an effort to better understand the phenomenon of the Jackson family’s celebrity. After listening to students and colleagues discussing the case I thought that it would be crucial to get an understanding of who the Jackson family is, how they see themselves we need to get an objective grasp of where they have been, in the United States of
    America that we modern people tend to try and turn a blind eye to.

    Compilation and data crunching involves counting specific words used, and recording points made and any major omissions.

    Listening to compiled data on the case, (I live and work in extremely rural academic Vermont, not known for its interest in media or celebrity to put it lightly.)… it is stunning how much time is spent discussing Jackson’s appearance. Two of our project members are not sighted. They brought the issue to my attention. I’ve become so desensitized to the rhetoric I forgot my ethics. History has taught us that to prejudge people by their appearance is to perpetuate a grievous error.

    Why had the issue of Jackson’s appearance become such a volley of subjective? Is he being tried for his appearance? And what if anything do we know about his appearance? Perhaps his liberal use of cosmetics,wigs and costume are a valiant effort to obscure some larger issue, a failing health for example?
    The point is, public opinion has nothing invested in accuracy when it comes to popular news reporting. There is very little accountability available for people that have been slighted by subjective or inaccurate reporting.

    Anyone that has had an elderly relative suffer through cancer, has probably been witness to the lengths the afflicted occasionally travel in efforts to disguise their fear of their failing health and especialy the appearance of infirmity.

    A person of such enormous celebrity with
    so much riding on their vitality is made vulnerable by the weight of their burden- the aptitude to perform well.
    A person that has been the primary resource for not only his family, but also the family’s attorneys, publicists and tax auditors, may have an unrealistic concept of their image.

    This can only be exacerbated by an entertainment industry that lacks ethics , that has proven to be nothing less than a fat opportunist and one that is prejudical and given to ingrateful omission of past works and royalties.

    The issue that comes to mind in viewing the reporting and very recently the blog dialogue, is a general lack of empathy and objectivity in analysis presented by the majority of those
    that take the time to weigh in.

    Just about anyone weighing in has an opinion and we are all entitled to have our own opinions. Studying the judical system and cultural history, often in the context of the great progress that is civil rights, the lack of empathy for jackson or his perported victims in reporting is frightening.

    Where is the outrage for what has just transpired under our noses? I don’t jsut mean the last presidential elections.
    Jackson’s civil rights were sold off for ratings and his right to due process has been robbed by the medium that has taken on the responsibility to report facts to the general population.
    It stings actually.This could and does happen to anyone.

    Middle to upper class people that own or work for these major media companies are largely White. The same can be said for those responsible for the largest percentage of researching,producing,directing, editing
    and presenting “news”. This means that the principle source of evidence in the court of public opinion is formulated and edited for public consumption by
    the same portion of the population that has been taken to task for several successive generations of insensitive dealings with minorities
    and an alarming proclivity to marginalize and even wilfully omitt
    the contributions of individuals that are not White and many that are for that matter. Either way, a few people decide who is going to be popular enough to have access to a fan base and remain popular enough to become mini industries into themselves. When the mini industry begins to work independentally free of the old boy’s network it becomes isolated and often fails entirely.

    How many people of colour for example, that would include Persians, Chinese, BAsque, Portugese, Italians, Catalinans, Greeks,Turks, East Indians, Amerindians, Black or Arab peoples did you ever see watching the generations most watched tv shows? Friends, Seinfeld, and Growing Pains for example were alot like Happy Days, Eight is Enough and the BRady Bunch. Even though it is all pretend, the entertainment industry can’t pretend
    that people that live in NYC live, eat and travel with people that are not White. Why? Because the highest paying advertisors are more likely to sign exclusivity contracts with popular television shows that fit their demographic. People of colour are simply not the largest consumers addressed in advertising campaigns?
    I don’t know. And now we have a huge push to popularize the least intellectually honest music and art from the black community. Mysogynistic, violent and materialistic, but mostly just vapid “black” culture now assaults anyone daring to turn on the tv or radio.
    Never mind that is a huge insult to most black folk, white kids are eating it up and acting out the worst parts of it.
    All white tv now puts out all black shows that dont have the imagination to include anyone not black in the plot lines of the story. Stereotype sells?

    You and I may not like racism but our apathy or tendency to accept its more subtle forms leads us to reaquaintence with a stranger we avowed to never let in to our conscious .

    I mentioned Kurt Russell earlier because as a year by year contemporary of Michael Jackson’s, his career contrasts greatly with Jackson’s though they have been of equal popularity to the same entertainment industry for the length of their careers. But the industry Im describing, is the contract career. Obviously they work in very different fields but for the longest period of their respective careers, that is until about fifteen years ago, the same media outlets were responsible for reporting news and information about the contract players, whose only responsibility is to make their contract’s holders and their investors to cover their investment and bring home a profit.
    Russell had talent and success and the industry rewarded him for it by keeping his image in the press and making him the focus of attention in
    films, television, magazines and even records. Scandals made their way to the tabloids. But Russell’s child hood status as contract holder included unfettered access to a media industry within the entertainment industry umbrella. Disney needed to make numbers and Russell has a picture ready for release promote the picture and promote Russell. Magazines geared to meet the impulses of young girls and their boyfriends would be provided with the images necessary to keep one’s profile on the front page. And even while Russell was still in elementary school, he had contracts and commercials and an income.
    Jackson and his siblings were watching Russell’s career and the Osmonds.
    But the environment of media was very different in the early seventies than it is now. The generation at the heads of the companies, the collective administrators and their handlers, they had different perceptions of what the American family looked like. They had a different experience in that America was
    divided racially until the seventies and then, and now it is still present in many communities. Black and Latin communities can be as discriminatory as whites in many a regretable instance.

    The consumer base the industry desired to attract fit a demographic that no longer exists. But it was very much in place during the Jackson five years.
    Jackson may have been popular as a child. But as the record clearly shows, black performers were at a premium and as a token black child MJ and his brothers were afforded some press.
    But the print media was not responsible for selling the Jackson five as much as the music and television. Regardless, the Jackson brothers simply did not have equal opportunity that their white peers did. They had to work just as hard and just like their white peers, there was no guarantee of continued success.
    This must have been exspecially stressful for a family from Gary Indiana
    that lived in a two bedroom house with nine children.

    We tend to forget how much black were excluded from popular press in the sixties, seventies and eighties.
    for recollection, have a look at the tv or walk through the video store looking for east Asian extras, secondary characters, or leads in movies of the last forty years. East Asians have contributed so much to this country, it seems nothing short of disheartening.

    American Indians no one wants to talk about the history of genocide and suppression of these indigine cultures.
    That fact becomes all the more ironic when research into the Black Indians
    and Indian relocation revealed to me a whole chapter in American history I ws completely unaware of.
    The Jackson family’s recent ancestors were not only slaves just a few generations past-thats a great grandmother for a sixty year old.
    They were also Seminole and Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Cherokee Amerindian.
    Their recent ancestors experienced Slavery, the Civil War, the Trail of Tears, The Great Depression, WW1 and WW2- Buckwheat, the Korean War, Kennedy and martin Luther King assasinations, Vietnam, the Race Riots and Muhamed Ali.

    But no one had ever seen anything like Michael Jackson.
    He was the most colourful and delightful of all our great minstrels and pickaninnies. Talented too. But the black man’s sexuality was taboo in Jackson’s childhood experience. He ceased to be popular when his weak, over exposed and manufactured competitors ,like Donny Osmand and Shawn Cassidy’s careers were at their peak.Their were no mainstream black sex symbols. Marvin Gaye was a cult favorite but children’s movies and television were growing with their white middle class demographic.
    Jackson was out of running and contracts dried up.
    Puberty wasn’t kind to Jackson.
    His career bottomed out and his siblings careers were in a worse situation.

    Late adolescence tends to mark the point when vitiligo makes its first appearance and it frequentally appears on or around the genitalia. In a dark skinned family with six brothers it can’t have been a good omen for their futures.
    Whatever the case, Jackson’s voice stayed high and unthreatening and he learned to walk like jiminy cricket and mickey mouse. He dated white teen starlets that also seemed clueless.
    And he moved to NYC to star in the Wiz, his first time away from home as an adult man with money in his pocket.
    The cast, crew and especially the dancers introduced MJ to studio 54.
    Apparently, he just about lived there for a few months.
    Quite a night owl evidentally. Two albums later MJ is certified superstar.
    And his face keeps getting paler. His weight is approaching Karen Carpenter’s
    and he is frequently hospitalized for dehydration during concert tours.

    The press apparently unconcerned with reality, started publishing mean spirited reports based on rumours about his appearance. Was he ill? Was his biggest and best performance the appearance of perfect health?

    I don’t know, but based on what we are learning about vitiligo and its immune system disorders, tabloid tv and the
    history of dark skinned people with the condition- the special discrimination suffered, i can appreciate now what i sense is a giant snowball that is rolling on its own. It doesnt matter what is true or not at this point.
    Anything published about this Jackson is so filled with hyperbole or bias its really more a representation of commercial interest than biography.
    If I accept that he is suffering from immune disorders and that vitiligo is one symptom, and the weaker he appears the louder his imageless detractors bark their prejudice. The sadder the clown appears the more we all hold our breath waiting for the thing to do something dramatic to help us not feel so bad for having feelings. We allow the persecution coming in all sides, comics, standup late night comics, talk show hosts and court tv all dragging the freak from its lair, tarring and feathering it and lynching their glory filled revererie.

    so numerous
    were the incursions against innocent people
    tracking down the origins of the Jackson

  • mihos

    Sexual abuse against children is abhorrent and intolerable. If Jackson molested children he will be charged and pay for his crime. If the prosecution had a case I wouldn’t be spending this time typing to anyone about the shocking reality of the Michael Jackson Child Molestation CASE.

    What I should have said in a lot fewer words is that everything you have read or heard about Jackson is suspect due to the great omissions of facts.
    Jackson never paid twenty million dollars to settle with a kid in 1993.
    jackson’s insurance lawyers convinced him to not go to court 15.7 million dollars would settle the matter and still cost less than what he would have to spend on attorneys if it did go to court- this includes publicists and security, and avoid the major drop of income and credibility as an artist for the year long trial.
    Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond keep repeating another version of the facts.
    The one I just relayed is truth.
    The court tv facts are intentionally misleading.
    If Jackson’s health status is worth keeping a secret he’s made visible and an easy target for those that desire to
    blackmail him out of money to keep those health secrets. These witnesses for the prosecution are unconvincing. Morevoer they all have the same three parties involved as the first case.
    the same attorney, the same psychologist or the same boss.
    I bet someone with vitiligo all over their body doesn’t often get naked in front of people. And someone that wears that much makeup doesn’t bathe in the company of other people. A person that wears wigs does not take showers with other people.
    And a person that reads heterosexual porn depicting nude women does not find preadolescent boys sexually attractive.
    If he did it would not culminate in tickling or hand jobs.
    Anything such an attraction desire is readily availble in countries like Thailand and Brazil for a price.
    There are simply not enough victims to make this an accurate depiction of his proclivities.

    His bedroom is a two floored wing,the size of a large condominium replete with movie screen and several beds.

  • Jane


    I don’t live in America and, in some ways, I agree that the media has a lot to answer for with regards to its reporting of this case. However,in the past, when it has suited his needs, Jackson has used the media to his own ends in much the same way. It was not long ago that he stood waving from a limo as he arrived at court the first day manipulating the waiting media and crowds.Jackson has just realised that what he has nutured for so long has come back to bite him and the loss of his control over that is interesting to watch.

    The point is, and always has been, he has a long history of behaving inappropriately with little boys, has paid people to shut up in the past and has used his fame to deflect critical analysis and investigation into his behavior in a way that average people in similar situations would not be able to do.

    My comments about his appearance may sound shallow and judgemental but, in the end, vitiligo does not require plastic surgery procedures to treat it with success. What is happening there is something completely different. Jackson is perhaps suffering from what plastic surgeons refer to as facial dysphasia, where he has become unable to honeslty assess his facial features against any norm. It is something that happens alot among celebrities (and others) challenged by the aging process and is an indicator of mental illness.

    Having said that, I don’t feel empathy with Jackson because I believe he has been well aware of his actions and behavior and its caught up with him. He has publicly stated that he doesn’t see anything wrong with his behavior which is what exactly what all pedophiles believe.

    However, if you dismiss my position you’d probably hate the following link. Visit it.It’s interesting.

  • jane


    If there was no case then why pay $15 m to settle? The pay another 2.5 for the same thing?

    You are summising about his personal habit as much as anyone. How do you know he does not shower with people, take off his makeup behind closed doors, or his wigs? That is as much conjecture as anything and is all supposition.Who knows. The case is not about whether he does these things but what he has done to little boys.

    And Mihos, one abused child would be enough in my book.

  • mihos

    Regarding Jane’s post,

    At 46 years old Jackson has had more than thirty years of wealth and success to develop proclivities. Because the media is only interested in covering newsworthy or odd Jackson has certainly played a strange game with the media. I didn’t suggest I find his behaviors justifiable. What im attempting to suggest here, is our precepts of Jackson are only what is published by a media that Jackson has willfully misled and even had the last laugh with for decades.
    If Jackson is actually a pedaphile, why is it that there are so few cases?
    No one has come forward that has been molested but a 24 year old youth pastor whose mother forgot to alert the police to what she supposedly witnessed and yet was also so stupid as to bring her young child to work regularly and leave him alone with Jackson on a regular basis.
    She sells her story to the enquirer and has frequently changed her story to suit
    different audiences.
    I have a difficult time believing that none of jackson’s nephews or neices, or any of his many child star friends have
    any problem rejecting the claims made.
    And every one of them starts their rejection of the claims with ‘ you dont know the man’ ‘ he’s nothing like you think’ etc. i used to believe that there must be some truth to the stories of his behaviors and he looks like a monster at times. But in collecting data on the coverage of the case and studying the press from the past you quickly come different conclusions.
    Tabloid media doesnt make money unless it gets people to buy their papers.
    The rest of print media has found jackson less than interesting enough to cover. his picture may appear with some little comment about something trivial. Jackson has watched the media game. he watched his peers, Donny Osmond and Kurt Russell for example get good coverage -positive coverage and yet Jackson and his siblings were all but ignored.
    When jackson reinvented himself he started a reckless game of eccentricity for coverage for an apathetic media.

    It got him coverage and he kept himself
    on the front pages. but he is being tried for sexual assault on a child.
    Now it is coming back to haunt him.
    The only press on Jackson is negative publicity and the details of his supposed acts are reported without regard to the ethics journalists are supposed to honor. The entire case he is now being tried for the grand jury testimony was leaked before the trial.
    How does that happen?
    Im not on Jackson’s team and Im not defending him, his appearance or his eccentricities. i am however attempting intelligent people to acknowledge how
    prejudical the coverage of the case is and continues to be. People want to believe the charges against Jackson.
    Their suspension of disbelief stays on when they listen to the salacious rumours posing as facts. They don’t have interns collecting data and probably are not that interested other witnessing jackson get his comupance.
    The empathy I feel is for the jackson family who know more than anyone how cruel the press can be and how fickle the public is. They also have experienced one take down artist after another.
    Lastly the surgery that Jackson Has had done to his face his nose that is clearly an obsession of his.
    Until you study the condition he suffers from you may not be aware of just how disabling vitiligo is for dark skinned people. It may also be suprising to many people that they never really looked at Jackson before his skin colour changed.
    We’ve studied the photos and can see he has had some work done. But the most dramatic difference is his skin colour not his features. His cheekbones are clearly evident in his siblings and so are his lips and just about everything you have read he has supposedly had done.
    But then blacks are not supposed to have plastic surgery are they?
    We uncovered a batch of material written about Janet Jackson that brazenly asserted that everything on her body was
    a product of plastic surgey, even though she admited to the prerequisite nose job and admited she had it fixed a asecond time because she wanted the old one back. But fifteen different writers reported that her breasts were artifical, her ribs had been removed and she had liposuction ignoring the fact that most blacks cannot have liposuction because of scarring it creates on highly pigmented skin. when her breast popped out for two seconds on national tv it was clearly not enhanced and yet there was not a single retraction.
    It pays to put the Jackson family down.
    jackson’s vitiligo may have arrested his sexual development and even his identity .
    His celebrity is unparralled the world over. China and India buy his records by the millions. it pays to report that he is a sexual predator of young boys and his apearance proves their claims in that convoluted logic.

  • mihos

    Regarding the second Jane post.
    The settlements of two million plus and fifteen million dollars respectively,
    are insurance settlements.
    When you count how much money Jackson has lost in this court case paying a team of attorneys, publicists additional security and hospital bills for failing health, one can clearly see why settling will be preferable.
    Hiw own publishing contracts make upwards of thirty million dollars a year. One performance contract is worth at least fifty million dollars.
    Arnold the governor was paid two hundred million a picture.
    Jackson is paid hundreds of millions of dollars for his concert tours and is worth over a billion dollars in assets including his own publishing not to mention that of the Beatles and Elvis which earn him another forty or so a year. The prosecution grossly underestimated Jackson’s wealth. For them fifteen million dollars a year is
    a huge sum. to jackson’s insurance attorneys, an artist that sells twelve million copies of an album that is considered a flop- making his label at least ten dollars per album- you do the math!
    If he has a life threatening illness induced by stress he would be wise to not be dragged to court where the threat of losing control of bodily functions could occur- where discussion in court is likely to end up revealing to the world just what it is he is suffering from physically- the damage has already been done true or not.
    To me the case is ridiculous and should never have been brought to court.
    i have a fifteen year old son and am wll aware of the capacity for children to embelish or lie if encouraged to do so.
    Studying pedaphilia cases and discussing
    the issue with psychiatrists leaves us with more questions. Jackson would have thousands of victims by now. His access to young children has always been unfettered. The reports of his behavior the actions supposedly performed to do not fit the profile of a pedaphile.
    It seems more likely that he was blackmailed and his ego got the better of him. He tried to fight back and his freak status makes it easy for the general person to agree without thinking about the validity of the accusations.
    look around the site below. It belongs to a Black American women with the condition of albinism. Until I visited the site and related sites on vitilogo I never imagined how disfiguring the condition can be.
    I dont understand how people could believe that a person that spends that much time and energy putting on their face to even out dramatic demarcations of pigment would jump into a shower wig and all with a kid.
    ive never even seen a photo of the man wearing shorts or a short sleeved shirt.
    Its easy to believe the worst case scenario until you realize the man is 5’11” and weighs 120 some lbs wet.
    His face clearly shows the signs of wasting syndrome.
    I don’t believe that African Americans or American Indian people lack a cerebrum. I don’t believe that they are purely sexual creatures. So I have a difficult time imagining a person could do something so hateful and hurtful to a child. It is even more difficult for me to accept when I see the parents accepting a pay out and dropping the case entirely. Of course the 93 accusor is not going to come to court to level his accusations. He can’t remember them.
    The legal secretary for the attorney handling the 93 case was on Larry King discussing what she new of the case. She stated that the entire case was a shake down an extortion case from the beginning to the end.
    She walked away believing Jackson was innocent of the charges. She had believe d the opposite. that says alot don’t you think?

    One way or another the trial gives both sides to put it all into the open.

    If the boy is found to be credible and wins his case Jackson goes to prison where he no doubt die in short time.

    if Jackson survives this trial and his family recovers from the pain of the media making money off of their pain then what?
    The court of public opinion has already been lost. what I am learning is that there are two different rules afforded to people in this country.The tabloid media working in conjunction with expert extortion attorneys and a deep seated bigot streak win the court of public opinion and wear the accusor down.
    his credibility was already lost with his last nose job.
    The right of a fair trial has already been robbed from Jackson when the grand jury testimony -not recorded in the presence of a defense attorney is posted all over the web.
    i don’t believe anything one of these prosecution witnesses have claimed and not because i feel a need to champion jackson’s cause. Im a led zepplin man.
    I don’t believe the prosecution is interested in justice here. If they were they would not have brought these witnesses forward. There are ulterior motives behind every word said by witnesses and court tv.
    It sells papers and it employs reporters. But that doesnt make it factual. i think everyone taken to court deserves objective anaysis in the press.
    this is not the case here.
    To digress in closing,
    people are so pathetically eurocentric
    they assert that jackson no longer wants to black and does so because he hates his own race.
    it took a half an afternoon to research the facts of their family history.
    They accrued most of the features that have made them the butt of every joke from their very recent Black Indian ancestors.those same ancestors were documented with the condition of partial albinism and sent away from the Indian territory to find subsistence somewhere else. Had the tabloid styled court reporters been interested in actual facts, it would have been in everyone’s interest to report the fact that vitiligo is a serious malady for some people. they might have learned that it behavez exponentially especially under stress. Too much of his skin suffered depigmentation to keep trying to put dark make up over the patches. Jackson put his creative genius to work to make the most of the situation and point fun at people that consistently marginalized his accomplishments as an instantly identifiable black American. The jester in him begged for negative attention. i think he wanted to prove to the world that his detractors would be prejudiced against his success no matter what colour? Who knows?
    I don’t. But reading these materials and listening to the reporting, reading the bloggery, I feel sick that so many people could be tricked into an old fashioned lynching.
    Features that people appreciate under white skin were always present under brown skin but no one bothered to really notice.

  • cookie

    I was abused and I don’t remember much of it and if my sister as an adult hadn’t identically corroborated the occurrences , I wouldn’t have believed it happened. My memories of the abuse pre-date our sharing; most survivors survive by forgetting, that’s the human instinct. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and i never reported it either.

    Since time immemorial such ‘animals’ have gotten away with destroying children’s futures across the globe in all communities, black white Indian Asian etc; no race is immune from this predatory disease.

    I am all too aware of the racialisation and marginalisation of certain racial groups across the globe (Aboriginals in Australia/ blacks & Indian in America/low castes in INDIA etc); BUT I refuse to comply with banning of children/ adults voices for political expediency.

    IF racist (overt and implied) elements of American society/ serious media want to distort the reality of Jackson based on his race that’s wrong but I don’t support sacrificing and silencing (thereby further abusing)victims and survivors of child sexual abuse at the alter of the civil rights struggle. You cannot tie the two together no matter how wrongly black/ other minorities are sexualised in the racist public mind because there are plenty of white paedophiles and victims from amongst the journalists themselves undoubtedly.

  • mihos

    I agree wholeheartedly. More than anything justice must be had here. My biggest concern is that thanks to blatant attempts of this high profile case, that is certain to fail to convict anyone on such trumped up nonsense, people will not take sexual abuse of children seriously and their cases will be met with undue criticism.

  • Eric Olsen

    I am working my way through all of this information, which I appreciate very much by the way even though it appears I have been labeled as unintelligent.

    1) why on earth would anyone find it surprising that media reports focus on Jackson’s appearance? It is, um, noteworthy, and even granting some “natural” aspect to his dramatic change in skin color, the sturctural changes are all voluntary: he has chosen to make himself look like this. Do you expect the press, people in general to ignore the simple fact that Jackson has voluntarily, and I presume at great expense, CHOSEN to look the way he does?

    There is no “grievous error” whatsoever in “judging” people (in the most general sense, not the legal sense) based upon what they have done to their appearance OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.

  • Eric Olsen

    re the rest: mihos, I am astonished how far you are willing t obend over backward to give this person the benefit of the doubt, making any number of unfounded assumptions and generalitzations.

    Aspects of the media are sensationalistic – shocker! – no shit, but if you can dismiss everything ever reported about Jackson’s behavior toward boys out of hand, then I believe your perspective is even more skewed than the most sensational quadrants of the media.

    And this isn’t about the Jackson family, it’s about Michael.

  • Richard Porter

    Again I agree with Eric on this one.

    I cannot even recall the media commenting about any racial overtones to this case. True, MJ’s appearance is mentioned because (as Eric described) he has evolved voluntarily into this very strange looking man. And certainly, his clothes with the armbands, medals and masks do not help.

    Mihos, if you want to make this simply into a black and white case, you will fail trying to convince many people (black or white)including myself.

    The OJ Simpson and Kobe Bryant cases were classic examples of the media (as well as regular people) speaking loudly about the strong racial overtones to their individual cases.

    Shouldn’t you be more concerned with MJ’s tainted background and large payoffs to past alleged victims?

  • mihos

    I realize where you are coming from. And if you open your mind for a split second you will realize that if i believed everyone was ignorant I wouldn’t have spent so much of my valuable time typing these rambling manifestos.
    With an open mind not prejudiced with salacious rumors about his perported behaviors with young boys a person can learn about what some preliminary investegation by our nine person classroom has compiled. im not weighing in on the case that has yet to be tried yet. I am strictly talking about the court of public opinion. And from our data we are measuring each word and sentence dedicated to the topic on several wires services, the news stations and of course the cable networks.
    If you believe that jackson wanted to see his image turn whiter than a ghost from vitiligo than you are keeping a closed mind. My posit above is that vitiligo made it impossible for jackson to keep the image he had so carefully groomed for all the years we were familar with him. The nose is his prerogative. But when you take the extra step to actually investigate albinism in African descended ethnicites and there are web links and libraries with that information available- any of the news reports could have done the same,
    you may have to reanalyze what you thought and have been conditioned to perceive and that is the crux of this effort here. As ive clearly stated three times here. I am not a Jackson supporter and am not an advocate either. My job is to study cultural history and its architects. this project was a sideline I was not interested in taking until i started reading what the students and professors had compiled. It was a round table faculty discussion here. We are not a bunch of zit faced teenagers here. None of us own a jackson record. And i only know two people with cable. I have volunteered and mentored abused children every summer for the last twelve years of my life. I have learned quite a bit about the topic of sexual abuse and am very keen to protect those people that advocate for stronger laws and more counselling. But we also need to protect child abuse victims by manking certain false claims don’t obscure the real ones.
    This is why rape claims must be taken so
    seriously and when we learn that they are occasionally fabricated it is disheartening. It doesnt mean that most people that bring a rape charge to the police are lying.
    In this specific situation, a person is obliged to address the reporting and the objectives of tabloid reporting.
    It sells papers.
    jackson’s immune system is shutting down. people close enough to him to rifle through his medical cabinet are capable of learning even more.
    As this theory is as stated just another unquantified unsubstantiated theory,
    try and keep an open mind long enough to absorb the parameters provided with that theory before making a decision on a person’s guilt or innocence.
    If jackson is suffering from wasting syndrome resultant from chronic infection or immune system breakdown,
    perhaps his obsession with reliving a childhood might make more sense to you.

    We interviewed a thirty year prosecuting attorney for a county in California, a nineteen year career adult probation officer and three case workers with many years of child welfare work between them.
    Each of them stated unequivocally, that if the first accusor had actually described jackson’s genitalia as court tv and fox news have continually aired as facts though no formal report was ever released to the press- he would have been arrested and charged regardless of any out of court settlement. He would have been in trial with or without the testimony of the accusor.

    The 93 case was a shakedown according to
    the high paid legal secretary of attorney who landed that fifteen million dollar settlement.
    A critical mind is useful when applied.
    Prejudice is another issue entirely.
    Most people with opinions about the case come to the conclusions that they have through these unethical tabloid styled reports. This is the point of what Im trying to relate here. Look at the headlines of this article.
    It screams look at this headline.
    It humiliates the entire Jackson family.
    On cross examination the so called witness was exposed for the lying thief that he is. He all but admitted fabricating the entire thing in the office of the civil case attorney!
    But that is barely covered in todays headlines. Every major story on the case opens with guard witnessed Jackson performing oral sex and fondling the 93 accusor.
    If this were the case in 1993, Jackson would already be behind bars.
    There was no case to bring to court in 1993 and not because the child refused to testify. they had no evidence.
    Now the prosecution is fabricating evidence. People one after the other are taking the stand and willfully misleading people because they want revenge. The guy is odd there is no doubt. And he was once very powerful.
    He may have fired people in an unempathetic manner. But the data we have compiled so far presents a different story.
    The court of public opinion has already been won by the prosecution.
    We are curious how this can be the case when we have all the information the media has provided and quite a bit more because we did the digging.
    I think perhaps this is the most objective, even handed article we’ve come across to date:

    the writer is letting jackson off on anything but take a close look at how a professional journalist frames the central theme of his discourse.
    He doesn’t have the answers but from the meager evidence presented so far, the
    prosecution is guilty for assaulting anyone with a telivision with details of sexual acts that may very likely never have occured.
    This is a very serious issue.
    One of our informal panelists that is a practicing psychologist working with sex abuse survivors thinks that jackson may very well be a pedophile. The others are less certain. From what we have learned he simply does not fit the bill.
    Yes he has a fancy house and has sleep overs with young kids. But on cross examination we learn that there are several beds in this double floored wing described in press as his bedroom.
    We also learn that when Jackson has a sleep over he almost always has an adult audience of friends he trusts and people that can vouch for his behavior because of past allegations.
    Lastly, Jackson’s video dvd collection of adult porn was extensive and yet neither the 93 accusor nor this latest grifter ever mentioned watching porn with jackson. The latest kid claims they looked at a magazine together and found one finger print of jackson’s and hundreds of the two brothers.
    Why didnt the latest kid testify that jackson plied him with porn on the big screen? possibly because he never found that porn stash as he had discovered the brief case in Jackson’s private bathroom.
    It is not adding up the rush to make judgment based ont he shocking allegations is very understandable, unless of course you read everything written and search for omissions.
    Very little of what has been shot down by cross examination is considered news worthy and it doesnt often make headlines.
    So you decide.
    What facts are the important ones?
    The real untarnished truth or the wishful lies?

    If we can keep an open mind why is it so hard for other people? that Ive taken the liberty to post here.

  • DrPat

    Thanks for the link (which might have been better in link format) – the article is short on fact, but long on self-denigrating description:

    This case is the ultimate sizzling shit pile of American society… what our culture of gross celebrity worship looks like when it comes out the other end. A pop star gone sideways under the lights, maggots nibbling at his fortune, hourly underpants updates on cable…

    Jacko’s super-white skin (and the hovering umbrella) may be due to his choice of treatment for the vitiligo:

    For people who have vitiligo on more than 50 percent of their bodies, depigmentation may be the best treatment option… a person who undergoes depigmentation will always be abnormally sensitive to sunlight.

    Aside from that, I failed to find anywhere a reference that vitiligo causes a person to develop a “Peter Pan” personality. So the color of his skin (black or white) has nothing to do with this case.

  • Eric Olsen

    good point DrPat

    mihos, I do very much appreciate your input and I would be very interested in reading the results of your study once you have completed/compiled it, and if Jackson does have vitiligo that would indeed explain his complexion, but I still have seen or heard nothing that dissuades me from assuming that Jackson has an untoward thing for young boys.

  • mihos

    I concur on all points. Thank you for taking the time to read the links in question. Under url above ive posted a pertinent link that describes the condition in the special instances of African derived people. It is truly worth visiting.

    I have to ask what leads you to believe that jackson has a special things for young boys? Aside from the witnesses on the stand who have all miraculously seen the same behavior in the dead of night without a seemingly paranoid jackson being aware of his being observed- even after ordering in french fries at 3:00 a.m. It is very damning testimony. The cross examination is also telling. But to this moment, it is woefully undereported. Why is that do you think?
    If a trial is about bringing the truth to the fore regardless of who benifits this is supposed to be about child abuse a serial abuser. Reporters are publishing new news lines ever few hours all around the globe. Have a google search under news and MJ.
    Note how little of the entire case is being reported. Its definately slanted against Jackson. The cross examination
    has pointed out a few things about the character of these witnesses over the last few days and next to noone is covering it. Ive seen dozens of headlines detailing the supposed sex acts. And yes the court of public opinion wants badly very badly to believe that these witnesses testimony is spot on.
    But the reporters are evidentally not obliged to report with the same flourish a detailed analysis of the cross examinations. Bits are mentioned in these reports at times. But isn’t it interesting to you that only two or three have mentioned the gaping holes in their testimonies revealed in cross?
    Why doesn’t it matter that these witnesses were found in a court of law to be behaving in an unlawful, intentionally malicious and oppressive manner? Their testimony is still more credible than Jacksons?
    Why is this? Because of his Peter Pan act? With a family as large as jacksons with all the hundreds of cousins all his nephews and nieces and all the inlaws many of which are bitter exes and a few have even written books about their lives as jackson wives, not one has come forward to corroborate these charges.
    His ex wives claim he is actually a very normal man behind closed doors.
    yes he created the impossible persona but that is not what he is being tried for. I want to understand what makes smart people take the word of disgruntled thieves over an artist with thirty plus years of celebrity under his belt? Are you certain that in all these years jackson has been molesting little boys? None have come forward but the 93 case which is on the surface very suspect. His parents are suspect their motives were obvious. The 93 accusor divorced both parents suing them for emancipation. interestingly that accusor with his entire fifteen million dollars
    chose to live in Santa Barbara, a whole forty minutes from Jackson.
    We have never heard his side of the story. And I doubt we ever will.
    one thing is for certain, alot of money was made in reporting the case facts and non facts and a huge number of people were prejudiced by it regardless of its merits.

  • HW Saxton

    I just heard this strange little tidbit
    on MJ on MSNBC recently. It seems that
    in one of the “secret” rooms in M.J.’s
    California estate(the room was a very
    large closet used by the previous owners
    wife for the use of storing her fur coat
    collection in) that there is/was a large
    painting of Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper”
    normal by all appearances but for the
    fact that instead of Christ surrounded
    by his disciples it is M.J.,not J.C.
    How can this person get any creepier???
    Wait,on second thought,don’t answer that

  • Eric Olsen

    mihos, to answer your most basic question, I do not know for a fact that he legally is a child molester, but therer is a vast amount of evidence that amply displays his “romantic” relationships with boys

  • DrPat

    In addition, mihos, let me add to Eric’s comment that reporting is sequential – right now, testimony is coming from several parties who report observing Jackson in decidedly pedophilic behavior. So the reports from the courthouse reflect that “bias.”

    Next week, the “bias” may be all the other way, as reporters detail the defense’s cross-questioning.

    We’re all (well, most) of us bending over backwards not to judge until we’ve heard it all. Even though many of us already have a good idea of where this is going, that doesn’t mean we’re cheering for it…

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, exactly, and today most of the reporting I’ve seen has emphasized Mesereau’s vicious cross-examination of the blow-job security guard and another observant maid – so it goes both ways.

  • mihos

    I’m not certain that trivializing the claims of “observant” witnesses is any different than sugar-coating reporting bias. It doesn’t pay to insult anyone’e intelligence (sic).

    In the five years we’ve collaborated on this program, most collected data for course case study is of the dry, legaleze order. We haven’t had many opportunities to present unambiguous examples of bias in reporting before now.
    We have to really fish and debate instances in most cases. Historical cases are a mixed bag with some obvious chestnuts. The Kobe Bryant case is a final project for about two thirds of the student groups this year.
    Martha Stewart and Greenpeace round out the remaining term papers.

    I don’t think we’ve ever found fox fair or balanced, especially with Martha Stewart, but a few interesting examples below provide the sort of alternative trajectory reporting is allowed to take.



  • Eric Olsen

    mihos, if you can’t laugh a little about the absurdity of this case on just about every imaginable level, then you don’t find life very funny. Its unending hilarity is its only redeeming feature as far as I’m concerned

  • mihos

    It is hilarious but frightening in a day in age where presidents take office through elicit means, wars are waged against hapless people in order to ‘liberate’ and
    well heeled Americans abdicate their memory of history’s lessons.
    i did laugh this morning at the news headlines including the jackson dominated ones. And then i realized that it can’t be funny to the Jackson family, our cultural treasure and first American dynasty.

  • Jane


    Pedophiles use a number of methods to entrap their victims. In the case of pre-pubesent boys, using pornography depicting younger women is one way to introduce adult sexual themes that are not frightening. Indeed, they usually invoke giggling embarrassment and a sense of secrecy that the victim has seen something “naughty”. This is exactly what the pedophile wants to happen because then it becomes part of the “big secret” that he shares with his victims. Tickling, wrestling and other such activities follow, along with the comments “It’s okay if that feels nice, it’s normal”.The comes the more offensive and invasive actions.

    Children can be very sexual, but this does not mean that they are sexually aware. The problem with pedophiles is that they mistake this and overlay their own adult sexual understandings and needs onto their victims. This is also why is is so confusing and damaging to the children involved because not all abuse initially feels “bad”. It is the hardest aspect of dealing with vitims of child sexual abuse and one which is often used against children by Defense lawyers ie why didn’t you tell?

    If the abuser is someone that the child loves, whether a parent, family member or someone like Michael Jackson, the abuse is more difficult for them to understand. More often than not, an abused child will still express love for the abuser. They just want the abuse to stop.

    I believe Michael Jackson is guilty, not because of his face or his colour or his manner of dress but because he has demonstrated history of inappropriate involvement and activities with young boys. This also includes feeding them alcohol and letting them behave inappropriately while guests in his house.

    None of us know whether he has visited countries and abused children, so none of us can say how many boys have been abused by him. But it doesn’t matter because several boys HAVE accused him.And just because none of us has ever seen him in anything but full clothing and makeup does not mean that he does not in the privacy of his own home. Vitiligo is a devastating disease for anyone to suffer from but it does not lead to people undergoing multiple plastic surgeries to transform themselves into a horrible parody of a non-African person, molest children or behave as if there is one law for them and one for the rest of us.I find it really interesting that all of his adult life Michael has kept himself separate from mainstream African American music, culture and lifestyle yet when he is faced with these charges, even the Nation of Islam gets involved.

    PLEEZE, he is as much an abuser and maipulator of the press and the truth as the media are.

    INSURANCE MONEY! Insuring what? His career? Against his sexual proclivities? His voice? His reputation?What rubbish. Jordan Chandler’s evidence was so compelling that Jackson was ADVISED to settle or he’d lose.

    And as I have said previously, one abused child is enough. To only consider the possibility of his guilt if there were a myriad of other accusations is both ludicrous and, quite honestly, appalling.

  • Eric Olsen

    Jane, that about sums it up, can’t disagree wih anything you have said. Completely independently of the press, the patterns of behavior are so clear and consistent that it boggles my mind when people say it “doesn’t make sense.”

    Also, I do feel for his family, but some of the responsibility also falls on them for not intervening at some point along the way to force him to get help, especially after the two settlements of the early-’90s. Collectively they clearly still have influence with him.

  • mihos

    Quoting Jane:

    “I believe Michael Jackson is guilty, not because of his face or his colour or his manner of dress but because he has demonstrated history of inappropriate involvement and activities with young boys. This also includes feeding them alcohol and letting them behave inappropriately while guests in his house.”

    Jane, How did you learn about these demonstrations of inappopriate involvements and activities with young boy? Where did you learn that Jackson feeds young boys alchohol?
    My original posit focuses on the bias of the news media which apparently feeds from the tabloid media.
    You are repeating allegations that have been rumoured to have occured and have never been substantiated as occuring at all. Yes, we have read or listened to reports of jackson taking showers with young victims and heard of his supposed reach arounds with young celebrities.
    These reports have not been substantiated and under cross examination the parties responsible for perpetuating these salacious rumours were revealed to be less than credible witnesses. Each of these parties met with tabloid middlemen and fabricated events to make money off of their former employee.
    The cross examination has been criminally under-reported which is what our group of investigative reporters and civil rights attorneys to be have asserted in workshop testamonials QUANTIFIED that is SUBSTANTIATED with data sets that prejudice viewers/readers against the innocence of the accused.
    This is not the way the American legal system is intended to work.
    All suspects are assumed innocent until proven guilty. In your well written piece, a number of your assumptions are based on that prejudiced coverage. They are not based on Facts. They are based on the sensational reporting from one or two sources that do not abide to journalistic ethics or rules of conduct.

    “None of us know whether he has visited countries and abused children, so none of us can say how many boys have been abused by him.” This is very true.
    We do not know. And there has never been a single case come to light. It is a prejudiced assumption that this has occurred. In the court of justice a person is tried on the specifics not the assumptions.

    “But it doesn’t matter because several boys HAVE accused him”.

    actually Jane,
    three boys have accused him in his twenty some years of adulthood.
    The psychiatrists and social workers on our panel are having a difficult time
    accounting for the paucity of complaints and accusations. Most pedaephiles launch
    a larger number of failed attempts than ever have succesful attacks.
    These strikes as they are described often form the basis for child molestation cases of priests, boyscout leaders and teachers. Sneddon doesn’t have a single strike witness in this trial.
    “And just because none of us has ever seen him in anything but full clothing and makeup does not mean that he does not in the privacy of his own home.”

    I’ll take this to mean that he is free to run naked around his own home.
    Yet you tactfully sidestep the actual issue. My posit is that jackson’s condition makes it difficult for him to
    get up and go in the morning without a make up artist, a dresser and a hair dresser.
    Is this how it appears to you based on what you read and see with your own eyes?

    “Vitiligo is a devastating disease for anyone to suffer from but it does not lead to people undergoing multiple plastic surgeries to transform themselves into a horrible parody of a non-African person”

    1. Michael Jackson is not an African person. He is an American person descended from a peoples almost never discussed in American history though they play an integral role in American history. Those peoples are the Black Indians. Both of Jackson’s parents are descended from Black Indian grandparents on both sides of their family trees.
    Yes there are African slave’s genes present and in generous proportion.
    That you would go so far as to describe Jackson as a parady of Non-African appearance belies a deeper disinterest in ethnic identity and relevent history of non Caucasians. It is not a trivial issue that the Jackson family are Black Indians. They have inherited many of the features of American Indians. Many of the features mentioned in sensationalist
    tabloids and regurgitated as fact are the not the product of plastic surgery as you posit.
    Most of the features mentioned in web sites discussing jackson’s supposed plastic surgeries are in effect incorrect and racist in their suppositions.
    Michael Jackson is not African. Until his skin de-pigmented most people were completely unaware of what features were obscured. Moreover, in recent popular history, Jackson was not amongst the more photographed luminaries of his time. Even while selling all those records and winning accolades, the press was uninterested unless selling something to a tabloid.
    Any perspective gleaned from biased reporting is bound to be off.
    Yes the nose is fixed and then some.
    So what! Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean, Johny Depp , Sandra bullock, Michelle Pfiefer, David Bowie and Wayne Newton all sport obvious nose jobs. The difference?
    The fact that no one takes offense to their rhinoplasties suggests that in the minds of some, blacks must “know their place” they mustn’t try and escape their
    intractable position as vassals in a white dominated social structure. And please don’t try and insult anyone’s intelligence by denying the power and influence of rich white men far exceeds that of anyone else combined.
    Jackson’s ethnicity or lack of it obviously threatens white people of all classes and educational backgrounds.
    Rather than perpetuate a condescending
    and byopic viewpoint that amounts to disavowing the cerebral nature of a Black person, in the assumption that jackson’s appearance is intended to obscure his family’s ethnic origins, I would step back from the spectacle far enough to gain access to what it is the artist is attempting to relate and express to their audience.
    It appears in my eyes that jackson’s white face is very much in reaction to the unfortunate recent American history where minstrels wearing black face were the at the apex of segregation’s nonspeak. Generally speaking, white Americans are not concerned when John Wayne movies depict American Indians as red savages, painted white actors perpetuating whatever stereotype the directors felt an enabled right to nail to the surviving Amerincian coffin.
    There is very little if any outcry to the disservice afforded by these westerns as made obvious by the generous
    reruns of everything John Wayne on the television around the holidays when families are home to celebrate thanksgiving.
    People are more offended by images of Step and Fetch It, Bojangles and Buckwheat. They are rarely seen in mainstream media anylonger.
    Jackson’s memory as a pickanniny child star the latest of a long string of black minstrels, expresses itself in tranformation from blackface to whiteface. White folks don’t get it?
    Fuck em! But it requires a non prejudiced mind to appreciate that blacks are as capable of genius as non whites. It means that one has to be less of a social critic and more of an art critic. Vitiligo presented a huge challenge to jackson and he met it face on knowing full well that he would be vilified regardless of intention. He is now a jester. Whites and many blacks fail to appreciate the genius in his persona.

    “I find it really interesting that all of his adult life Michael has kept himself separate from mainstream African American music, culture and lifestyle ”

    You should find it interesting Jane because it is hardly an accurate assumption. The musicians that consistently perform on his albums and live in concert are for the larger percentage clearly Black. His business was run by Bob Jones a man of obvious African American as you put it ethnicity. The head of jackson’s security is black, the music generated by his creativity is black. Lifestyle?
    What is the main stream African American lifestyle pray tell?
    jackson is not being tried for losing his pigment is he? If your arguments were leveled as basis of justification of prejudice so be it. But these perpetuations of unsubstantiated rumour are nothing more than that.
    Just the Facts.
    That is all that should be reported no special interest theories or opinions are necessary. The facts are enough.
    This is what the court of justice maintains. And by the way, the appearance of the Nation of Islam,
    why do you suppose that jackson had anything to do with their appearance?
    jackson’s brother Jermaine is Moslem.
    They may have appeared for their own reasoning. there has never been a single report from jackson claiming these men were invivited by jackson. That is just another example of pile it ontop it will stick regardless.

    “he is as much an abuser and maipulator of the press and the truth as the media are.”

    True. What are you and I?

  • uao

    I’m just amazed at how much wordage mihos gets out when he types “on the fly” I wish I could do that; I’d have a novel done in a week.

    I don’t quite see where all this “pickaninny” and “minstrel” stuff is coming from, though.

    Jackson began his career at the black-owned Motown records at the behest of his father. As a young child singer, he displayed talent and charisma; never once have I ever heard him referred to as a “pickaninny” until today. Are the Temptations “minstrels”? Was Brandy another “pickaninny”?

    But I think this discussion is straying from its original topic.

  • mihos

    Its a problem I can assure you.
    The pickaninny era ended with Emmanuel Lewis. Cute, tiny, harmless black boys outlasted the adult versions who were largely white in black face regardless.
    Its a fact of history many Whites have a difficult time recognizing much less accepting. People often lament over how cute Michael Jackson was when he was a little boy. We all know how long the careers of pickaninnies last. There hasn’t been one to survive past adolescence with the exception of Jackson. This is made all the more ironic when scandalous reports are launched discussing jackson’s career and
    appearance. The mainstream white media exhibits a convenient amnesia of how it covered the Jackson 5 and even what American culture was like for blacks in sixties and seventies.
    For people to demean Jackson for not staying to true to form is another example of those racist underpinnings in our society that hold up the foundations of what like to think of as a progressive culture.

    No one described Jackson as a pickaninny.
    That terminology is something cultural historians will be more comfortable with.
    The first cross-over acts performing to white audiences were minstrels and picka ninnies. Jackson was never in the same league as the Temptations or Brandy.
    Their target audience and the basis for any publicity generated was for a largely black audience.
    the Jackson 5 were threating to an all white American society that tolerated the black community but had a difficulty accepting Sami Davis Jr. as anything but the butt of the joke as he was unluck enough to be born creatively as a caricature into pop culture. Jackson had
    more insight and experience by studying pop culture and he maintained the right to transform as any white artist might.

  • mihos

    J. Randy Taraborrelli, author of the book “Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness,” said that when he was researching his book 12 years ago, he interviewed many of the Neverland employees now testifying and decided not to quote them because they had financial motives to lie.

    “If these people did not have this baggage and if their stories ended with, ‘… and then I called the police,’ my reaction would be, ‘Oh my God,'” he said. “But if you really saw these things, a normal person would call the police; you don’t call the National Enquirer.”

  • jimbob

    FOX 411 MJ Major Domo Lied About Cashing In

    Created: Monday, 11 April 2005

    Monday, April 11, 2005
    By Roger Friedman

    Former self-described Neverland Ranch “major domo” Philip LeMarque told a lot of tall tales on the witness stand last week.

    On Friday, LeMarque pretended he was above selling stories about his former employer’s alleged acts of child molestation to the tabloids.

    LeMarque, who worked for Michael Jackson along with his wife Stella LeMarque for 10 months in 1990 and 1991, testified that he had only once tried to peddle a story about his ex-boss and Macaulay Culkin. That would have been in 1993, and to the National Enquirer.

    In truth, LeMarque’s relationship with the scurrilous rag dated back two years earlier to 1991, which was when the couple first tried to sell a Jackson story to the Enquirer. LeMarque didn’t tell the jury that little tidbit on Friday.

    LeMarque also failed to mention that in October 1991, he had taken money from the Enquirer to sneak its reporters on to the Neverland property for Elizabeth Taylor’s wedding to her last husband, Larry Fortensky.

    He also left out an important element of his failed bid to sell the Enquirer his Jackson-Culkin story in 1993.

    On the stand, LeMarque testified he would drop the idea altogether when it didn’t look as if he would get his asking price of $500,000.

    In fact, LeMarque and his lawyer, Arnold Kessler — whom LeMarque described on the stand as his “friend” and not his actual rep — were demanding the Enquirer indemnify them against future lawsuits from Jackson, because the LeMarques were breaking the confidentiality agreement they had signed upon taking employment at Neverland.

    The paper refused, and thus the deal ended.

    The whole story of the 1991 and 1993 negotiations is included on eye-opening tape recordings made in secret by late Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager.

    He bequeathed the tapes to investigator Paul Barresi, who spent a year and a half transcribing and editing them. The hundreds of hours of recordings describe the Enquirer’s unsavory tactics dealing with sources, subjects and the police.

    What Barresi found, among other things, is that the Enquirer routinely turned over its notes to police after it was done with them. The tabloid was thus able to avoid lawsuits by claiming it got its information from police sources. This was a clever tactic, but the complete opposite of what actually had happened.

    Barresi’s findings clearly show that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon may be basing much of his “mini-trial” of prior allegations of child molestation by Jackson on National Enquirer reporting from the early 1990s.

    But listening to Barresi and Mitteager’s tapes reveals the dark side of the tabloids’ inner workings.

    While Mitteager may have performed a historically important service by making the tapes, he comes across on them as desperate to get anyone to say anything incriminating about Jackson. Alas, after years of dangling huge sums in front of potential sources, Mitteager and the Enquirer were never able to come up with anything substantial.

    The tapes paint quite a different account of the story Philip LeMarque told to jurors and the court on Friday. They show that Enquirer editors thought of the LeMarques as hustlers who would go to the highest bidder with any story.

    When LeMarque was asked, during cross-examination by defense attorney Tom Mesereau, why he didn’t take his tale of Jackson molesting Culkin to the police instead of going straight to the tabloids, LeMarque replied that nobody would have believed him.

    Barresi, an expert on the “underbelly” of this world, laughed at this statement.

    “Every single witness testifying against Michael Jackson claims they did not call the cops because nobody, with the exception of tabloid reporters flashing big bucks, would ever believe them,” he said.

    Barresi says LeMarque didn’t go to the police because he had already been to the Enquirer with the same story in 1991, when he and his wife were dismissed from Neverland.

    On Aug. 26, 1993, Mitteager is heard telling The Globe’s John Bell: “[Tony] Brennor [also of The Globe] did an interview two years ago. He can’t find the tape. The sources are gone. They were two former housekeepers, saying that he [Jackson] was fondling kids all the time … saying that he abused kids … He was trying to cut a deal and it blew up somehow.”

    Mitteager says to Bell at another point in the conversation: “[Globe reporter] Mike Carrigan had this story years before, but it went belly-up because it was so legally dicey.”

    Barresi plays an integral role in the story of the tabloids, the LeMarques and Mitteager’s tapes. He tells me that he met and dated Stella LeMarque, then surnamed “Marcroft,” before she married Philip LeMarque.

    Stella LeMarque knew Barresi worked with the tabloids and came to him a few years later to ask if he could help broker their sale of the Jackson story. Barresi says he did not discover that the LeMarques had already tried this in 1991 until years later, when he heard Mitteager discussing it on the tapes.

    More light is shed on the LeMarques’ 1991 attempt to cash in on Jackson from the conversation Mitteager taped of himself and Enquirer editor Robert Taylor on Aug. 31, 1993.

    Mitteager says to Taylor: “They are also aware that you sit down and write contracts and sometimes don’t publish the article. They know that too, you know what I mean? Because that’s what happened to them last time.”

    Enquirer contracts at the time were worded in such a way that sources like the LeMarques were not guaranteed payment unless their stories checked out. And even then, the paper was not required to pay until the issue with relevant story was off the shelves.

    According to a source, snitches were often shocked to find the great amounts of money they were promised were not guaranteed.

    What Barresi is sure of is that in Oct. 1991, the LeMarques, freshly dismissed from Neverland, offered to sneak the Enquirer onto the property for the Taylor-Fortensky wedding.

    “They were wined and dined by the Enquirer and loved it,” Barresi says. “They really carried on and said they knew a way the paper could sneak people onto the ranch. They were paid by the paper in advance, but at the last minute they backed out.”

    The LeMarques, Barresi says, didn’t mention anything in 1991 about Culkin. That part of the story only surfaced in 1993, after Jackson’s unrelated child-molestation civil suit surfaced.

    But then, the story had Jackson’s hands remaining on the outside of Culkin’s shorts. As the potential for higher payment increased, the hand went inside the shorts, Barresi said.


  • DrPat

    The name rang a bell, and Anthony Pellicano was the note it rang. Over a year ago, I was reading about a Pellicano-Mitteager connection in the late 90s. Mitteager’s recordings were introduced in evidence during Pellicano’s trial as well…

  • james mclafferty

    Cheers for the link Dr patinteresting reading:-)

  • james mclafferty

    FOX 411 Seeking Truth in the Jackson Case

    Created: Wednesday, 13 April 2005
    By Roger Friedman
    U.S. Army Maj. Jay D. Jackson may not have told the complete truth Tuesday when he took the witness stand in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial.
    The question is: Will Jay Jackson’s testimony be considered a white lie, or something worse?
    Jay Jackson, the husband of Janet Arvizo, mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser, and no relation to Jacko himself, said under oath that he did not sell a story to a pair of British tabloid reporters in February 2003.
    Questioned by prosecutor Ron Zonen, Jay Jackson conceded that when the reporters, David Gardner of The Daily Mail and photographer Alec Byrne, came to him, he immediately asked them for compensation.
    But, he testified, after a couple days of negotiations — and an offer from The Mail for $15,000 —he turned them down.
    In fact, Jay Jackson repeatedly denied on the stand that he ever took money for a story about Michael Jackson.
    Well, that’s true, and yet it isn’t completely true.
    The truth is that Jay Jackson and Janet Arvizo did sell a story to Gardner and Byrne. The story was published on Saturday, Feb. 9, 2003, in The Daily Mail, and then ran in Australia the next day. It had quotes from both the accuser’s mother and her friend, comedy-club owner Jamie Masada. I told you about this article, which was never published in the United States, some time ago.
    But no money ever changed hands, and The Mail wound up getting it for free.
    I am told by sources that Gardner and Byrne conducted part of the interview, took pictures of the family and got other pictures from them.
    But when they testify in the defense portion of the Michael Jackson trial, the two journalists will have an interesting story to tell, one that will provide a missing piece of the puzzle in this bizarre tale.
    According to my sources, Gardner and Byrne finished Part 1 of the interview on Feb. 4, 2003, right after the accuser and his family were featured in the British broadcast of the Martin Bashir documentary “Living With Michael Jackson.” They planned to get Part 2 the next day.
    But when Gardner and Byrne returned to the family’s apartment on Feb. 5, they were surprised to find them completely gone.
    Ironically, both Jay Jackson and Janet Arvizo had negotiated a fee even higher than $15,000 with the British reporters. But they and the kids had vanished overnight.
    The reporters, I am told, surmised that Jay Jackson must have realized that if merely knowing Michael Jackson (there was no molestation allegation at the time) was worth at least $15,000 to The Daily Mail, then it must have been worth even more to … Michael Jackson.
    The thinking is that Jay Jackson and Janet Arvizo called Neverland and told someone there what was going on. The result was that the family was quickly whisked away to Miami.
    The scenario makes sense and suddenly explains why Michael Jackson — who was in Miami at the time — wanted the family brought to him immediately.
    The commonly accepted reason is that the family came to Miami to be part of a press conference. But no such event ever materialized, and the family returned with Michael Jackson by private plane to Neverland within 48 hours.
    Now it seems that the Miami trip may have been triggered by a call from Jay Jackson and the accuser’s mother.
    “How else would Michael have known they were in ‘danger’ from the media?” asks a source. Good point.
    It may have been only at that moment that Michael Jackson’s managers, Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer, realized that the accuser and his family were vulnerable to questioning from tabloid reporters.
    Wiesner and Konitzer likely put together the plan to keep the family isolated and entertained for a period — a plan which was bungled and then mushroomed into what is now called “The Conspiracy.”
    Gardner’s story, by the way, will be key to Michael Jackson’s defense, because the truncated interview occurred right before all hell broke loose.
    In the story, Janet Arvizo — with no prompting from anyone — said: “Michael has brought something special into our lives. All of my kids have stayed over with Michael. I am comfortable with that. … They are happy with him and have a lot of fun. They are hoping to travel the world with him. He is their angel.”
    Masada, a family friend, discounted rumors of possible inappropriate behavior to Gardner: “[The accuser] is not a naive kid. He would have said if something bad had happened.”
    Meanwhile, Jay Jackson will have some problems on the stand as his cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau continues on Wednesday.
    His truthfulness about the Daily Mail reporters hinges on his claim that he didn’t take money. He also testified very clearly that he never told the accuser’s mother about the monetary offers or the amounts involved.
    That, I am told, is simply untrue. Janet Arvizo, who sounded very articulate and composed on a tape recording played in court Tuesday, is said to have participated in the negotiations with Gardner and Byrne.
    As an addendum to this, there is also the matter of Jay Jackson’s evident astonishment in court Tuesday as Mesereau played a 20-minute tape made by private investigator Brad Miller of Janet Arvizo and her three children.
    On the tape, the family members waxed poetic about Michael Jackson being their savior and father figure.
    At the time, they were living in Jay Jackson’s home, and he considered himself their surrogate dad.
    No mention was made by any of the family members of Jay Jackson. It was as if he didn’t exist.
    As the tape played, Jay Jackson rocked back and forth in the witness chair, drank a pitcher of water and wiped sweat from his brow.
    It was a stroke of brilliance on the part of Mesereau to subject the witness to this evident humiliation.
    The tape made him seem like a sucker in a con game, one made all the worse since he later married Janet Arvizo and now has a baby with her.

  • Eric Olsen

    Friedman is certainly at odds with most of the media in his presumption that Jackson is pure as the driven snow.

  • Jane

    This is what Australian’s think about Michael Jackson….just a few of the many jokes going around…

    Q: Why are Michael Jackson’s pants so small?
    A: Because they aren’t his!

    Q: What did the man on the beach say to Michael Jackson?
    A: Get out of my sun!

    Q: What do you do if Michael Jackson is drowning?
    A: Throw him a buoy!

    Q: Why did Michael Jackson place a phone call to Boyz-2-Men??
    A: He thought it was a delivery service.

    Q: What’s the difference between Michael Jackson and Casper?
    A: One is pale and scares kids and the other is a friendly ghost.

    Q: How do we know Michael is guilty?
    A: Several children have fingered him.

    Q. Why did Michael Jackson rush over to Wal-Mart?
    A. He heard that boys’ pants were 1/2 off.

    Q. What’s the difference between a supermarket bag and Michael Jackson?
    A. One is white, made of plastic, and should be kept away from smallchildren. The other is used to hold groceries.

    Q. How do you know when it’s bedtime at the Neverland Ranch?
    A. When the big hand touches the little hand.

    Q. What’s brown and often found in children’s underpants?
    A. Michael Jackson’s hand.

    Q. What is blonde, has six legs, and roams Michael Jackson’s dreams every night?
    A. Hanson.

    Q. What the difference between Michael Jackson and acne?
    A. Acne doesn’t come on your face until you’re about fifteen.

    Q. Why can you always win a race with Michael Jackson?
    A. Because he always likes to come in a little behind.

    Q. What did Michael Jackson say to Gary Glitter?
    A. I’ll swap you a 10 for two fives

    Q: Who does Michael Jackson consider a perfect “10”?
    A: Two 5 year olds.

    Janet and Michael Jackson were at home one night…
    Janet: Shall we get a pizza and video tonight?
    Michael: Yeah, okay, can we get Aladdin?
    Janet: No, just a pizza and video

    Q: What’s the difference between Michael Jackson and greyhound racing?
    A: The greyhounds wait for the hares to come out.

    Q: What do Michael and homework have in common?
    A: Both are a pain in the ass to kids

    The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson:If he hears any more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he’ll have no choice but to make him a priest.

    FBI have raided Michael Jackson’s house:
    They found class A drugs in his kitchen, Class B drugs in his living room and Class 5C in his bedroom.

  • aussie

    what eva jane im an aussie and think he is innocent. ur jokes are offending to children – god help u if ur child was molested how would u feel if losers like u made fun at your child. how bout sum original stuff if ur gonna do it, not some rehased crap heard b4 that isnt even funny

  • HW Saxton

    Regarding Macaulay Culkin and MJ. Since
    Mac’s been long rumored to be gay, just
    maybe he and MJ did have a thing of some
    sort going on.There is the chance that
    he may have enjoyed it.Sad to say but it
    has happened before.In Little Richard’s
    autobiography he told about older men
    taking him out into the woods and doing
    perverted shit to him and enjoying it.
    Like I said, sad & sick but true.

  • Jane


    Least I can spell.

    The jokes are directed at Michael Jackson and his peccadillo. God help YOUR kids if you think his behaviour is innocent.

    The guy is a 46 YEAR OLD pervert.

  • sandra smallson

    So many opinions. I am still of the opinion that MJ did nothing whatsoever to Gavin Arvizo and if I had any doubt, the manic testimony and excessive dramatics of gav’s mother has wiped that doubt out of my mind. This is a fraudulent family and they are out for fame and fortune. It is clear for all to see.

    In fact, I allege that they were made aware of certain facts of the 93 case so that it would appear that there is a pattern. I allege that after the documentary and they were discarded by MJ and approached by Sneddon and gang, they were ready to strike at MJ for discarding them and they were made aware of certain things in the 93 case that would make their allegation sound true.

    As far as the previous allegations, it is a pity that Jordan did not come to Court. He has spoken to neither parent in 11 years. Jason Francia and his mother, I did not find all that credible. Wade and Culkin have denied it. Can they not be subpoenaed? What is the point of servants claiming to have seen this and that when the alleged victims are alive..why can’t we hear from them? If the prosecution believes their case is so solid, they should subpoena them to take the stand.

    All these previous allegations ofcourse cause one to raise the brow BUT the pattern developing seems like a clearly orchestrated one by the fact most of their witnesses so obviously tailor their responses to back up the opening statement of Sneddon. Often it is clear that the responses are not spontaneous but rehearsed and orchestrated to suit the point the prosecutor is trying to make.

    I am not going to condemn MJ because of previous allegations that were never tried, never thoroughly investigated, and where the parties actually concerned have never given testimony under oath.

    The Arvizo claim has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. THAT is the trial we are watching. It would serve most of you well to remember that.

    Mj is certainly a strange one but I do not think he is a pedophile and I have heard nothing to make me think that. Not even the alleged oral sex he gave Jordy. That servant must be imprisoned immediately because if he saw that and did nothing or said nothing, he is an accomplice.

    These prosecution witnesses are down on their luck, poverty stricken, money driven illiterates. There is not a one that is above board and the handful that are, add nothing to the truth of the case..such as George Lopez. The rest are shit.

  • james mclafferty

    How could Jackson employees keep quiet?

    April 14, 2005


    ‘[Michael Jackson] was licking my son’s head.” — Testimony Wednesday from the mother of the alleged victim in the Michael Jackson trial.

    Every time I hear about a witness in the Michael Jackson trial testifying that he or she saw Jackson molesting a child or engaging in seriously weird behavior with a child, one thing is clear: The witness is an unconscionable liar — or an unforgivable coward. Earlier this week, we heard from one of the idiot parents who allowed their children to spend far too much time with Jackson simply because of his fame. The mother of the boy who received a huge cash settlement from Jackson in the early 1990s testified that after initially refusing to allow her boy to share a bed with Jackson, she relented.

    Why? Because on a trip the family made with Jackson to see Cirque du Soleil in Vegas (talk about a funky family field trip), Jackson “was sobbing and crying, shaking and trembling,” the mother testified. “He said . . . ‘Why can’t [the boy] sleep in my bed? There’s nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on.’ ”

    Imagine a man in his 30s weeping and pleading with you to let your son share his bed, all the while assuring you there’s “nothing going on.” Would you:

    A. Call the police.

    B. Tell him that if he ever so much as looked at your child again, you’d kill him.

    C. Agree to let your child spend two nights in the man’s bed.

    If you answered “A” or “B,” congratulations, you’re a citizen of Planet Sanity.

    If you answered “C,” I only hope you don’t have custody of anything beyond a goldfish, and I pity the goldfish.

    Wacko witnesses

    Also this week, Jackson’s former publicist testified about whether or not Jackson licked a boy’s head — and just typing those words again gave me the creeps.

    Bob Jones first testified that contrary to prosecutor’s claims, “I don’t recall ever seeing any head licking” by Jackson on a flight from L.A. to Paris. But when the prosecutor produced an e-mail in which Jones talks about Jackson performing the beyond-strange act, Jones reversed his stance. Jones also said he saw Jackson and this particular boy in a cuddle-type position as they slept on the flight back from Paris.

    Last week, the witness testimony against Jackson was even more blood-curdling.

    Michael Chacon, a former security guard at the Neverland ranch, testified that in late 1992 or early 1993, he looked through the window of Jackson’s pool house and saw Jackson performing oral sex on a 10-year-old boy — the same boy whose mom OKd the sleepovers with Jackson.

    To call that deeply disturbing is a gross understatement, but try to imagine if you were that security guard and you saw what he swore he saw. What’s your next move?

    A. Smash the window and scream at Jackson to stop.

    B. Get into that bedroom by any means possible, beat the living daylights out of Jackson and call the police.

    C. Wait more than a dozen years before letting the world know what you saw.

    Check that. Chacon didn’t wait quite that long to take action. He and some other former employees of Jackson’s filed a multimillion- dollar lawsuit against Jackson, but lost — and in fact were ordered to pay Jackson more than $1.4 million when Jackson countersued.

    Under oath in this latest trial, Chacon described other incidents of Jackson allegedly kissing and fondling the boy — but apparently Chacon did nothing about it.

    And so it has gone with other former employees, including a one-time maid who signed deals with the tabloids and joined Chacon in the unsuccessful lawsuit against Jackson. She claimed to have witnessed multiple incidents of inappropriate behavior.

    Then there’s the elderly ex-employee who said he was delivering an order of French fries to the Neverland arcade late one night when he saw Jackson fondling then-child star Macaulay Culkin.

    “I was shocked,” said the former employee. “I almost dropped the French fries.”

    Yeah? And then?

    And then he exited the room and loudly announced his presence before re-entering. How courteous and considerate of him.

    I’m no Michael Jackson apologist. The creepy behavior he has tried to rationalize in TV interviews, the statements he has made about the beauty of sharing one’s bed with a child — that’s enough right there to shut down the Neverland ranch and to make sure the man is never alone with any kid.

    Whether he’s a child molester, I don’t know. This freak show of a trial seems to be filled with enough inconsistencies and questionable rulings that there’s a strong chance Jackson will be acquitted or will win on appeal.

    What I do know is that these witnesses are alleging some of the most heinous behavior imaginable — and not a one of them seems to have done a damn thing about it while the acts were being committed. Who are these people?

    Liars. Or cowards. There’s no in-between.

  • james mclafferty

    Can i just say i think i can hand on heart say that he will be vindicated of all crimes and that there will be a lot of apologies owed, in a way the arvizo’s will have won either way because they are swallowing his time at the moment stopping him from living.Janet arvizo seems a flipping head case,even the jurors lost interest in what she was saying!.I must say that rodney melvile is a confusing character even though i couldn’t believe he gave the prosecution permission for the 1993 case i think that bringing it was a chance to vindicate him of both trial’s because i believe that if the 1993 case was left then people even when he is found INNOCENT of the current accusations will badger on about 1993 and it would hang around his neck forever.Be honest how many of you were mj fans before this trial happened and how many now have turned right against him?.There will be a lot of people who slagged him off at one point suddenly proclaiming all along he was inncocent and they’re sorry (hippocrites),the truth always comes out .What ever you do comes back on you and i reckon the arvizo family will be bitten hard.Oh well better get off my soapbox but this trial is a farce.

  • james mclafferty

    I must just say i don’t agree with what mr roper says in his article but wondered what people thought of it?

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks James, I agree with just about everything Roeper wrote as well, but I think in the boradest sense the answer seems to me to be “coward” rather than “liar” for these witnesses: they didn’t want to lose their jobs, they didn’t think they would be believed, they were afraid of the imposing “Jackson operation” – although none of this is an excuse. And the mothers are equally or more culpable, but one has to take into account the emotional/material hold Jackson had over both the mothers and the boys, which was clearly very powerful. This doesn’t excuse their parental failure at all, however.

  • james mclafferty

    Eric with due respect the “i didn’t think anybody would believe me” phrase is an easy way of covering themselves.I don’t know in which way you are following the case but not being funny it sounds like you are just repeating what the tabloids say when you make your opinion’s known.I will not judge you based on your opinions because i don’t know you personally,you maybe the most decent person anybody could know but i feel like alot of other people you are misinformed.I don’t know if you know and this is from court transcripts so it’s actually happene’d(the tabloids won’t ever print it),but nearly every witness so far has been made to admit they have lied, about something, if your an intelligent bloke surely your mind should overule this urge to demonise mj even if your heart says different.Granted people would say why would i defend a person who doesn’t even know i exist?, it’s about human empathy ,while michael jackson trial is going on resources to convict proven paedophiles are not there and they are getting away with their crimes because the focus is on mj, Tom Sneddon is close to retirement and trying to go out on a high. But it’ll surely end in tears for him.eric when writing opinions try not to put personal believe into them remark on wehat is being presented.:-).

  • james mclafferty

    I do not insult my own intelligence by reading only the good press i read also the bad press,so that i don’t disollusion(sp?),my self with what i just want to hear,but all i’m interested in is what actually comes out of the court not fabrications,because yes i am a major mj fan but if there was the slightest chance he was guilty then i would reject everything that represents him.He is as far as i can see INNOCENT thanks for your time reading this.

  • Eric Olsen

    I read the transcripts, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. As I have oft repeated, I do not know if he is innocent or guilty of the specific charges against him in this case, but at absolute minimum he is guilty of being an “emotional predator” of young boys and this must be stopped

  • mihos

    Eric, perhaps you could write ‘ sensationalist media convinces me that jackson is an emotional predator of children and this must stop.’.
    an addendum I might write:

    American and Australian media convince me that Aboriginals and descendents of slaves
    are subhuman not worthy of empathy nor entitlements of human dignity.
    This must stop.

    When an individual is accused of assaulting children, I want to know that all involved pay close attention to the facts in the case. I want to know that all personal prejudice has been usurped by a common goal for the restoration of justice and dignity for genuine victims of child abuse.

    As a father, a teacher, and consumer of art I want to believe that my community and society as a whole places its first priority in protecting the innocent against the evils of those that would exploit their innocence.
    When children are coerced to lie without
    any compassion for the adult to be punished by their omissions of truth, it is a wake up call. When a majority who enjoy certain entitlements of class, economy, education, justice, find it amusing and even entertaining,the exploitation of child abuse and that they somehow find the boon and its windfall in scandal justifiable , it pisses me off.
    The hegemony’s eogmaniacal pathos reveals itself.

    Even while war disrupts a great percentage of the world’s population and aboriginals from Darfur Sudan to Red Lake Reservation are made victim to violence- their children suffering the worst of it- we find it acceptable as a society and even enable the exploitation of child abuse by this materialist mob of opportunists. I can’t help but feel that perhaps we have failed as parents and as a society.
    What sort of message is this trial signaling to the world?
    Jackson is without a doubt like him or not, and i am no fan, the world’s most singularly recognized luminary.
    Deal with it.
    The world is watching with more interest than you or i.
    The witnesses are suspect.
    None will be tried for turning a blind eye to child abuse holding out for lucrative tabloid contracts rather than police.

    Even those of us not in the least interested or involved become involved as the discussion of the case assaults us with every news flash.
    That news has been biased and slanted.
    Most reports are written straight from tabloid and reported as fact.
    There has never been a single corroboration of Jackson molesting a single child. Not in a court of law.
    Based on the facts and not the sensational facts, I don’t know anything about the man based on a random photo or
    rude write up making fun of his face.

    Regardless, the real victims of child abuse, are being assualted as a transparent media blitz lynches jackson
    simultaneous to an aggressive corporate
    take over of jackson’s condiserable media assets – ie his multi million dollar corporations.

    Are the media more interested in money or children?
    Are people being manipulated by a media that has its own ethics to answer for the concundrums it finds itself in?

    What does it mean to society?
    What are the ramifications for a child that has falsely accused an adult of child abuse? What will this generation of kids believe?
    What will they have experienced?

  • Temple Stark

    an emotional predator? What’s that. And is it against the law?

    And if not against the law, how is it “stopped?”

    I’ve come to believe, sadly, that he is more than an emotional predetor – he’s a little more “hands on” – though I also find it incredibly hard to believe some of the garbage coming out of the adult witnesses mouths. To such an extent that I don’t believe much of it.

  • Eric Olsen

    if nothing else, mihos, your mind ranges freely over the cultural landscape. Why you are so predisposed to turn a blind eye toward the 20-year behavioral of this individual is completely beyond me – this IS the court of law where he may be finally convicted. The rest is unrelated, as far as I can tell.

  • Richard Porter


    I’m just throwing it out there:

    Maybe Mihos has a little “crush” on our “Beat It” crooner?

  • Eric Olsen

    no, I think he has somehow configured Jackson to be the underdog here, which is exactly how Jacko wants him to see it

  • Richard Porter

    It is this same type of passive agressive behavior by Jackson that probably allowed him to get as close as he did with those boys.

  • mihos

    Don’t bother to make this some personal filch factor thank you gentlemen.
    Again, speculation based on sensational tabloid reporting just isn’t cutting it.
    Taking that next exhilarating step of rolling me into the fruitcake batter in some pathetic attempt to justify your obvious bigotry is more of the same crap.

    I don’t see jackson as an underdog.
    And jackson is the least compelling component of what people are writing.

    glib and entitled a cultural imperialist perpetuates

    What does seem obvious is that the injustices of this carnival trial are more significant than any trivialization

  • DrPat

    I don’t see jackson as an underdog

    Perhaps not, mihos, but you obviously equate Jacko with a class of underdogs, as evidenced by your references to African Americans and Australian Abos.

    Most of the news I’ve read corresponds with what has been posted here on BlogCritics, and is taken from the courtroom transcripts, not the tabloids.

    As for comments, well, you know what opinions are like. Everyone has them!

  • james mclafferty

    Here is another nail in the arviso’s case.
    Jackson Accuser’s Mother Admits Lies
    By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

    SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Michael Jackson’s lead attorney tried to prove the mother of Jackson’s accuser was a con artist after the singer’s money, getting her to admit under biting cross-examination that she had lied under oath in a previous case.

    Attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr.’s long and sarcastic questions and the witnesses’ long-winded answers prompted Judge Rodney S. Melville to admonish them both.

    Mesereau, trying to show the woman’s family has a history of giving false testimony to make money, focused on the woman’s lawsuit against a department store. The family received a settlement of more than $150,000 in 2001 after alleging they were roughed up by JC Penney security guards.

    Mesereau noted that in a sworn statement, the woman said she had never been abused by her husband at the time — an important issue, because her alleged injuries may have been caused by such violence.

    “You were not telling the truth under oath when you made those statements,” Mesereau said.

    The woman eventually responded, “This is correct,” but explained that she lied because she was embarrassed about the abuse.

    She also said she was untruthful when she said in the lawsuit that her husband was honest.

    The witness implied that she made the false statements under duress, testifying that she was beaten throughout her marriage and felt “liberated” after her husband’s arrest in 2001. She said she then asked her attorneys in the department store lawsuit to correct the record, and that she considered them “liars” because they never did.

    Earlier, the witness testified that she gave a poor performance on a videotaped interview in which she praised Jackson, saying she is a “bad actress.” Mesereau fired back: “I think you’re a good one.”

    The judge chastised Mesereau for the remark and told the woman to refrain from delivering long answers unrelated to Mesereau’s questions, telling her, “It’s as much your fault.”

    Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient, plying the boy with alcohol, and holding his family captive at his Neverland ranch and elsewhere in February and March 2003 to get them to help rebut a damaging documentary.

    Jackson’s lawyers have suggested that the child-molestation charges were concocted by the boy’s mother in an attempt to shake down Jackson for money. She testified Thursday that she has no plans to sue him.

    The mother said Jackson associates gave her a precise script to follow in the rebuttal video but later told her she had strayed too far from it, leading to the comments on her acting skills.

    The woman testified that almost everything on the video — even breaks where the boy complains about his seat and the family laughs at jokes — was scripted by Jackson aides. She said the only departure from the script was when she discussed God, cancer and child welfare workers.

    The woman suggested that she met with one of Jackson’s associates 10 times at Neverland to discuss what she would say on the video. Mesereau noted that she had never said this before in interviews with police or prosecutors, and suggested she was trying to enhance her story.

    Asked about a report she made against her ex-husband accusing him of molesting her daughter, the woman refused to answer the question directly and instead turned to the jury and said, “No, he’s wrong.” But ultimately, she agreed she had made such a report.

    In one of many moments when the woman strayed from Mesereau’s questions to make accusations against Jackson, the woman said, “Now I know that Neverland is all about booze, pornography and sex with boys.” The remark was struck from the record.

    The judge struck so many remarks Friday that at one point he interrupted the proceedings to explain to jurors that they could not consider remarks he struck, and that such remarks would not appear in court transcripts.

    Earlier in the day, prosecutors concluded their questioning of the woman by showing jurors videotapes found in a private investigator’s office to demonstrate that Jackson associates had closely monitored the boy’s family while he, his mother and siblings were allegedly being held captive by Jackson at Neverland.

    The tapes included footage taken outside the home of the accuser’s grandparents and in the parking garage of the mother’s then-boyfriend, whom she later married. The woman has said Jackson’s people kept her in line by threatening her parents and boyfriend.

    * __

    Associated Press Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.

    She as i said in another post is araving lunatic and a waste of time for the prosecution even they were getting P****d with her at point’s.

  • mihos

    “but you obviously equate Jacko with a class of underdogs, as evidenced by your references to African Americans and Australian Abos.”

    Actually, and thank you for asking,
    from my own experience in studying North American cases and a few Australian trials,
    there is no polite way to describe the two different sets of laws and their respective
    ethics for whites and non whites.
    In this case, a non white is being tried for raping a child.
    The case is flimsy at best.
    most of what is known of jackson comes from tabloids. Next to nothing that is considered fact is substantiated fact.
    The Court of public opinion has been officiated over by white middle class pundits with unambiguous prejudice which they launch from their good old boy network.
    THis trial should never have come to trial and people that have trivialized child abuse in order to vilify jackson as a justification to spouting racist rhetoric- come on sheila wake up already

  • james mclafferty

    Can i just point something glaringly obvious in this are you all forgetting he has kids of his own that live with him.To of spent all this time with gavin and others he would of i assume not been able to watch his own kids and look after them his oldest is 8yrs old and would probably take a lot of his time up,unless some of you are sick enough to say that his kids were also with him he’s a father at the end of the day as well and i’m quite sure he wouldn’t want his own kids abused by somebody.Why would a person who is a father himself, risk losing his kids due to molestation?.There is apparent on both sides of this case.

  • james mclafferty

    I meant a parent on both sides not apparent.New keyboard needed me thinks.

  • Eric Olsen

    mihos, the race-baiting angle is more fabricated piffle worthy of the tabloids you are so fond of. There is a vast amount of testimony, grand jury transcripts, details of the earlier settlements, and JACKSON’S OWN PUBLIC STATEMENTS – no one has to resort to tabloids to gather a pattern of behavior. I’m beginning to think you are a Jacskon plant with your willful disregard of reality.

    James, frankly, who gives a rat’s ass if he has kids, kids he apparently purchased from a series of brood mares. This has no bearing on his relationship with children not his own.

    You Jackophiles seem to be willing to grasp at anything as PROOF that your beleaguered hero is innocent and pure as the driven snow.

    I ma doing my best to steer a neutral course and keep an open mind, and you are makign it very difficult with your desperate fawning drivel

  • james mclafferty

    No your’e not eric face it if he’s guilty it’s better press for people like you!,and he didn’t “buy” his kids 2 of them are debbie rowes and his,let me spell it out for you, IF HE IS GUILTY AND IT IS PROVEN THEN I WILL ACCEPT THAT AND NEVER ENTERTAIN HIS MUSIC AGAIN!,but whatever you say you arrogant prat,whether you like it or not there has been “nothing” to say he is guilty of anything at the moment.Youv’e slipped up with the buying story because that is tabloid crap and not the total truth,yes at least one of his kids was concieved under questionable circumstances but it doesn’t mean he’s not their dad.neutral my arse!.

  • Eric Olsen

    I would say that comment speaks for itself. And how does his guilt or innocence make any difference to “the press”? The press isn’t driving this case at all – there isn’t even TV coverage, which is all most people care about. I have the ability to listen and weigh facts and testimony for myself, believe it or not, and thus far I have decided the kidnapping is bogus and the alcohol/molestation not. Sorry if you disagree

  • DrPat

    In this case, a non white is being tried for raping a child.

    In this case, mihos, a forty-year-old man is being tried on accusations that he has sexually abused children.

    That Jackson is ethnically black has as little to do with the accusations as does his habit of wearing armbands. They’re both superficial observations that, while true, have nothing to say about the facts of the case.

  • james mclafferty

    Oh and there is tv coverage granted not live but sky news do reconstructions from “court transcripts only” at 9.30am and 230pm gmt.I don’t know maybe you don’t get sky news but might i suggest you watch them if you can.The reason i was so funny with you ERIC was because you seem very dismissive of the people that are adding to your sites viewing figures.I live in england and when looking on google news for mj despite what you think there is a “lot” of tabloid driven crap on the internet fom u.s.a tabloids and broadsheets.AP the only fairly nuetral site as they don’t put their own opinions.I have stopped at friends of my parent’s house before and been given a kiss on the forehead many a times when i was a kid does that mean they intended to molest me? No.

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t dispute any of that James, but I would guess the parents of your friends don’t have a pattern of behavior regarding children such as Jackson has. If they had, everyone would look at the “kiss on the head” differently.

    Of course there is all kinds of media swirling around this, including tabloid nonsense; but the point is that the case wasn’t driven by the media, the media is just covering it, one way or another.

  • cookie

    I would sooner believe survivors of abuse when they finally tell their story than an individual who admitted sharing his bed with a young boy in the Bashir documentary as if it was the most natural thing in the world. I felt sick when I saw that programme as it had parallels with paedophile talk. Some time before I watched this documentary, I watched another very controversial documentary on the award winning Channel Four in the UK in which Paedophiles described their lives and their ‘crimes’. I remember being struck with sickness by the comments of one of them who said that his preferred sexual relationship with children was the same as other sexual relationships; that is he equated liking children with the sexual relationship between someone who preferred blonds, brunettes, hairy or bearded, homosexual swinging. else. He described it as a ‘preference’ issue. Jackson, in the Bashir documentary didn’t understand why his holding hands with Gavin or sharing sleeping quarters with him was not appropriate behaviour for an adult. MJ can’t turn it around by questioning those who question if this is appropriate adult behaviour. This isn’t innocent or appropriate behaviour. He is ill, sick and needs locking away from children. The sad thing is everyone in this case has neglected the boys and has been more interested in earning a buck than protecting the innocent from the life sentence of childhood sexual abuse and its personality damaging consequences.

  • cookie

    oh by the way, MJ is trying to get us feeling sorry for him, and his stunts are working. For the first time since this trial began I saw a TV news clip of him leaving court on the day Gavin’s mother was giving evidence. He looked at the crowd outside sheepishly like someone being harassed. Talk about trying to get people’s sympathy. This is pathological evidence for me, proving he is trying to dupe people into believing he is soooo innocent. I was abused as a child and Gavin’s apparent lying was a part of my pathology too. Victims of abuse live a lie when their abuser tells them to not tell anyone; they are told to lie; that is also part of the abuse that their personality is forever corrupted. Why is the world blind to the suffering of Victims of abuse? Why is a pop star (admittedly I loved his music too; thriller was groundbreaking) given immunity from prosecution when anyone else displaying such behaviour would be charged without question? Those people who think MJ is innocent are contributing to the abuse of children by allowing them to be sacrificed so they can continue to listen to thriller / win a civil rights point.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks Cookie, your input is appreciated. I felt the same way you did when I saw the film, very queasy and ill at ease. As you say, his money, fame and power have bought him far more slack than any “normal” person would receive.

  • james mclafferty

    Mondays court hearing
    Day 34: Bizarre Testimony Continues -Accuser’s Mother Tells Story of Possible Hot Air Balloon Escape

    Created: Tuesday, 19 April 2005

    Monday, April 18, 2005

    On day 34 the mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser resisted answering questions by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. and began her fourth day on the witness stand by making lengthy and rambling speeches to the jury. Melville had to again command her to “answer the question and don’t volunteer additional information.” However, she continued to break the conventions of criminal trials. She turned to speak to the jurors with every answer to Mr. Mesereau.

    During another combative day on the stand, the woman admitted that she once told sheriff’s deputies she feared Mr. Jackson had a plan for her and her family to disappear from his Neverland ranch in a hot air balloon.

    However, she accused Mr. Mesereau of taking the comment out of context. “I told police that (Mr. Jackson’s associates) had many ways to make us disappear,” she said.

    “And someone mentioned to you a hot air balloon?” Mr. Mesereau asked.

    “That was one of the ways,” she said.

    Mr. Mesereau asked her what she meant when she told police that Mr. Jackson should have hired a tutor when her three children stayed at his Neverland Valley Ranch.

    “That he’s managed to fool the world, and I was one woman inside there,” she said. “That’s what I was trying to communicate. That what he puts out to the world is not who he is. And because of this criminal case … now people know who he really is.” Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville denied Mr. Mesereau’s motion to have her statement struck from the record. It was one of only a few times the judge didn’t grant motions by Mr. Mesereau or prosecutors to instruct jurors to disregard her rambling narratives as “unresponsive.”

    In spite of testimony and evidence already presented to the contrary, the mother also denied repeatedly that Mr. Jackson or anyone associated with him had tried to help her and her family when her son was stricken with cancer.

    Asked whether Mr. Jackson arranged a blood drive at his Neverland ranch, she said, “I was responsible for that.”

    She then launched into an explanation about how the hospital would provide a bloodmobile anywhere she could arrange such an event.

    “And Mr. Jackson allowed you to use the ranch for the blood drive?” asked Mr. Mesereau.

    “Yes, this is correct,” the woman said. But she added, “He wasn’t the only one. Many church groups gathered.”

    Mr. Mesereau also elicited testimony that the woman received checks for $20,000 and deposited them in her mother’s bank account. But she said she could not remember how any of the money had been used for her son.

    She also said she opened a bank account in which people could deposit money for her son’s benefit.

    “Did you withdraw thousands of dollars from that account?” Mr. Mesereau asked.

    “Yes,” said the woman.

    “And was any of that money for medical expenses?” the attorney asked.

    “No,” she said.

    Contrary to previous reports of the newspaper employees, she denied that she misled a reporter for a local newspaper into writing a story saying the family was poverty-stricken and was paying $12,000 for each chemotherapy treatment the boy received. The story included an address to send contributions.

    She said that the $12,000 figure was a typographical error and that she meant $1,200.

    But she confessed ultimately that the family was responsible to pay for absolutely nothing because the father’s health insurance covered the boy’s treatment.

    Throughout the trial, Mr. Mesereau has characterized the accuser’s mother as the manipulative force behind what he says are false allegations of child molestation against Mr. Jackson.

    Monday, he asked her repeatedly about whether she was involved in efforts to solicit money for the family after the accuser was diagnosed with cancer in 2000.

    She insisted she did not ask for money and was not aware of two fund-raisers planned for her son at the Laugh Factory, a California comedy club. But she did admit she cashed two $10,000 checks given to the family by comedienne Louise Palanker, and that she withdrew money from a bank account set up for donations for her son.

    She said she did so at the direction of her then-husband, the teen’s father. She denied that any of the money had gone for her own use, saying it was used to pay living expenses and bills.

    But she also said her husband, whom she later divorced, took some of the money and “went to Las Vegas.”

    Mr. Mesereau led her through questions and answers involving her relationship with comedian Chris Tucker and his girlfriend Aja, and she denied that the family solicited help, money or any other gifts from Tucker.

    She acknowledged that Tucker once gave the family a car, but she said she never asked him to do that and asserted that he only did it because he had gotten his girlfriend a car and needed to make room for it.
    Mr. Mesereau pressed her on whether she made any attempts to get help during the family’s alleged period of captivity. On Monday, the woman was forced to acknowledge again that there were people she could have called on for help, including a lawyer who was dealing with her relationship with her estranged husband, but that she never did.

    “Did you complain to anyone in the building that crimes were being committed against you and your family?” Mr. Mesereau asked.

    “No, but I am now,” she said.

    Mr. Mesereau also noted that the woman was able to telephone comedian Louise Palanker during the alleged captivity.

    “If you could call (Palanker), why couldn’t you call police?” Mr. Mesereau said.

    “I couldn’t. I was hoping she could,” the woman responded.

    Mr. Mesereau then asked, “You didn’t call 911?”

    “I have now,” the woman said.

    Mr. Mesereau quizzed her about a claim for disability the woman filed in the late 1990s, citing depression, in which she said she was “sad about being a nobody.”

    “I’m still a nobody,” she countered three times in reply.

    Mr. Mesereau also asked why she had mentioned the names of Mr. Jackson and basketball star Kobe Bryant in an interview with police in 2001 when she was reporting domestic problems with her now ex-husband.

    “That’s because (my husband) was calling me a whore and said I was having sex with these people,” she said.

    The defense scored a key point against the 37-year-old woman by getting her to admit she alerted police to allegations that Mr. Jackson had plotted to kidnap her family only after consulting two lawyers. One of the attorneys represented a teenager who in 1994 won a settlement worth more than 20 million dollars from Mr. Jackson over earlier sex abuse allegations.

    In another coup for Mr. Mesereau, the woman contradicted her version of why she recorded two taped interviews within four days in February 2003 in which she described Mr. Jackson as a beloved father figure to her children.

    She said that a gushing interview with a private detective working for Mr. Jackson’s then attorney on February 16 was unrehearsed, “from the heart.”

    But she insisted that a video recorded by Mr. Jackson aides just four days later was made under duress, and that her family’s lavish praise of Mr. Jackson at that time was entirely scripted by the star’s aides.

    On Friday, the woman admitted lying under oath in a lawsuit she filed against a department store in 2000 in which she won a 152,000-dollar settlement over claims of wrongful arrest and sexual assault by security guards.

    When Mr. Mesereau asked her Monday if she rehearsed her children about what to say in that case, she turned to jurors and said: “He’s giving me too much credit. No I did not.”

    The trial began its eighth week Monday. The mother of the 15-year-old alleged victim is the 54th witness called by prosecutors. Mr. Mesereau’s cross-examination of her ended shortly before court recessed for the day. She will return for more follow-up questioning by the prosecution Tuesday.

    Courtroom observers commented on the striking difference in the mother’s appearance. In the ‘rebuttal’ video shown to jurors, her long hair is wet and crimped. In court, she wore a bob cut befitting a soccer mom. In the video, she has glossy red lips and perfectly shaped eyebrows, and bears a slight resemblance to actress Marisa Tomei.

    In court, she was wan, wore eyeglasses and no makeup, and claimed to be a poor judge of character.

    The witness was seemingly inexhaustible on the stand Friday. She continually dodged and weaved around simple yes-or-no questions, instead turning to the jurors and offering observations such as, “He’s inaccurate,” or “He’s mixing up the facts, purposely.” She laughed at Mr. Mesereau at one point. “You … you are,” she began to mumble. “I have a lot of thoughts in my heart about you.”

    Another time, she shot at him, “Are you missing the point?”

    She seemed particularly peeved about the question of whether she was treated to a full body wax while under alleged captivity.

    “Would it refresh your recollection to look at the receipt?” Mr. Mesereau asked, offering to show her the Feb. 11, 2003, receipt from a nearby Los Olivos salon, which indicates that $140 was spent on a leg, brow, lip, face and bikini wax.

    The mother refused to look at it.

    “I’m telling you, it was only a leg wax. He has the ability to choreograph everything,” she said, pointing a finger at the defendant.

    “And how about you?” Mr. Mesereau responded glibly.

    Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / Reuters

  • DrPat

    This woman missed a bet – she should have claimed she was not only kidnapped, but tortured (full body wax – ouch!).

  • james mclafferty

    Can i just say iv’e just realized that all those people who are already saying that jacko is guilty wants to realize that the whole of the case so far and upto the end of next week is only the prosecutions side of the trial, the defence doesn’t start it’s case till then.So you have only heard one side, REMEMBER THIS:the prosecutions side is that mj and friends trapped the arviso’s in neverland,and that this was because michael jackson supposedly molested gavin(are you with me so far?),but the defences side is that JANET ARVIZO not only coached her children to say about the ALLEGED molestation,but also this is because she is ALLEDGEDLY trying to screw money out of MJ.The defence is also claiming that TOM SNEDDON has helped the arviso’s concoct a few statement’s with their stories.In short the defence hasn’t been heard yet so how you can assume somebody guilty from only hearing one side of the story is beyond me(predjudice towards mj?),it would be intelligent to hear both sides instead of taking a witnesses word for it.Let the defence show what evidence against the arvizo’s they have and then judge.Because a few of you have taken the arvizo’s words as gospel which is wrong when you haven’t heard the other side of the story lets see what develops and then judge him guilty or innocent.

  • Eric Olsen

    good point James, but we have heard each witness being cross-examined, so their version of things isn’t a mystery

  • james mclafferty

    Yes but the point is eric the defence has still got to have it’s time to try and disprove what the prosecuion has said.We do not know what the defence has to counteract it, i hope i’m not repeating myself but i’m not wrong when i say that you seem to have convicted him as a peadophile in your own mind,before hearing the defences evidence(does that make sense?),you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion but forgive me when i say why are you branding him a peadophile just from what youv’e heard before the case(alledged grooming),as i have said before the truth always comes out eventually.So at the moment neither me or anybody else can make a real judgement youv’e got to agree with that mate.

  • james mclafferty

    just in from roger friedman

    FOX 411: Cracking Jackson Accuser’s Mom’s Secret ‘Code’

    Created: Tuesday, 19 April 2005

    Tuesday, April 19, 2005

    By Roger Friedman

    Nuts…Yesterday’s court session in the Michael Jackson trial yielded the usual amount of questions and curios, including a declaration by the accuser’s mother that the pop star planned on sending her kids away permanently via a hot-air balloon.

    But the prosecution fought back. After three grueling days of cross-examination for Janet Arvizo, District Attorney Tom Sneddon had to do something to rehabilitate his much-diminished star witness.

    Assistant prosecutor Ron Zonen, who is no dummy, introduced a series of pictures into evidence. They showed a badly bruised and beaten Arvizo after her handling by J.C. Penney security guards in her infamous arrest.

    But there is one problem: The Drudge Report has for some time now been running a mug shot of Arvizo taken by the West Covina, Calif., police department, and that picture does not jibe with the ones Zonen showed the court.

    This was first noticed by yours truly and New York Daily News reporter Michele Caruso. In the mug shot, Arvizo doesn’t look happy, but she doesn’t look battered, either.

    That did not come as a surprise to a source who was close to the J.C. Penney incident. He insists that the pictures we saw in court yesterday were fakes. So what happened?

    “Either Janet Arvizo’s husband David beat her on purpose to perpetrate a scam, or he just beat her,” my source said.

    The much-maligned David Arvizo pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and child cruelty in 2001 and has not seen his children since.

    In the 2001 J.C. Penney case, the Arvizo family was awarded about $152,000 just before David Arvizo was himself taken to court. The Arvizos claimed that security guards for J.C. Penney and Tower Records set upon them like rabid dogs and beat their brains in.

    The apparent cause was that their then-10-year-old son, Jackson’s future accuser, had walked out with clothes that he didn’t pay for.

    Janet Arvizo testified that she came upon her husband and two sons in the process of being attacked by the guards.

    Janet finally admitted in court yesterday — after previously feigning amnesia — that she netted $32,000 from the subsequent civil suit, while her sons got $25,595 and $8,576, respectively. Her husband also received $5,000.

    My source explains that the Arvizos didn’t get the $3 million they originally wanted, settling for the lesser amount when they realized they couldn’t get more.

    But those pictures!

    “They look like someone beat her with a club, repeatedly,” my source said. “In broad daylight, in a mall. It’s simply not true. She didn’t have those bruises from that experience.”

    Shortly after the checks came in, Janet Arvizo sued her husband for divorce.

    The pictures were meant to prove Arvizo’s story, show how she suffered and bolster her sagging defense.

    Court observers noted that Jackson’s defense attorney Tom Mesereau let the pictures be introduced as evidence without any fuss — just a slight gesture of the wrist as if to say, “OK.” No other piece of evidence has been received with less debate.

    It will be interesting to see today if Mesereau knows something about those pictures — like who took them and when and why Janet Arvizo wasn’t treated at a hospital for these injuries — when court resumes today.

    But that still doesn’t let Janet Arvizo off the hook. Mesereau has finished his cross-examination, but Arvizo now undergoes re-direct and then follow-up questions from Mesereau.

    Her third day of testimony was much like her first two, except that yesterday she seemed drowsy on the stand.

    At one point, she put her head down flat on the witness box and appeared to doze off completely.

    At other times, she was her usual combative self, fighting with Mesereau, making asides to the jury and to Michael Jackson and mostly breaking all rules of decorum for a courtroom.

    This did not please Judge Rodney Melville, who chastised her for not answering questions posed to her. He admonished her several times.

    But it was no use. Arvizo responded to every one of Mesereau’s questions by turning to the jury and giving long, digressive answers.

    Several times, objections to her questions were raised, though not by Mesereau, but by Zonen, her court representative. Attorneys in the court said it was a rarity to see a prosecutor making objections about his own client.

    Arvizo did indeed suggest that Jackson’s people might have whisked her kids away in a hot-air balloon. She also contradicted her previous testimony several times, and left herself open to other witnesses coming in during the defense’s case and presenting opposite evidence. Not good.

    Among her preposterous claims: She was limited to “one meal a day” during her alleged “kidnapping” by Jackson employees. Restaurant receipts indicate otherwise — and a high caloric intake at that.

    She also claimed that she and her family were not allowed to leave the Calabasas Country Inn and Suites, despite records showing that they were hardly ever there and even went to the movies when they weren’t shopping or dining out.

    There was more testimony from Arvizo about her “kidnapping,” including that she never bothered to call 911, didn’t tell anyone in the number of federal buildings she traversed that she had been kidnapped, and didn’t tell her own lawyer or her friend Azja Pryor, who is comedian Chris Tucker’s girlfriend.

    Instead, Arvizo insisted again that she was speaking to all these people “in code,” dropping hints so that her parents wouldn’t be murdered by Jackson’s team.

    Mesereau pointed out that Arvizo spent the last two nights of this saga not trapped at Neverland, but with her fiancé in his apartment. She didn’t tell the U.S. Army major either, she said, but spoke to him in code as well.

    You may be asking at this juncture: Whatever happened to the child-molestation charge in this case?

    Arvizo admitted yesterday that she never told the police that such a thing might have happened until she had had several meetings with lawyers, including Larry Feldman, the attorney who got a $20 million settlement for another teenager allegedly molested by Jackson in 1993.

  • cookie

    So the mother colluded with the abuse by seeing dollar signs first. She’s not perfect but her lies dont mean MJ is innocent; MJ is still wrong for sleeping with young boys. He admitted that on the Bashir documentary. if another man who wasnt a celeb did this, there would be no excusers. mr mclafferty, Would you let your son/ nephew or another child stay at neverland and sleep in MJ’s room? or let MJ come to your house and sleep in your child’s room?

  • james mclafferty

    I give up with you lot, WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER MJ MOLESTED THE KID YET,you are only taking the prosecutions side into consideration.As far as mj admitting he “sleeps with boys”, yes he did but if you watched the martin bashir documentary he stated that by saying that 99% of the time he will sleep on the floor in asleeping bag and the kids would have the bed to themselves.Even gavin arvizo said that on the documentary.If you remember and i quote Gavin:”michael said if you love me you will sleep on the bed”,gavin then went on to say that michael insisted that he would sleep on the floor while gavin was in the bed,to me i can’t see anything wrong with that.It’s understandably hard for people to think that a 46 year old man who has an affinity with kids has no alterior motive but why not?,you and i wouldn’t let our kids go but that doesn’t mean i think he’d molest them.Look whatever you think i am not just taking jacko’s side i’m listening to the evidence, like i told eric if indeed mj is guilty i will be sickened and have nothing to do with his music or him ever again,face it us mere mortals before the case had only what we’d heard about him to go by “hearsay”, the only people who know for sure if anything is awry is mj and gavin let’s let the court system decide hey.

  • james mclafferty

    Oh and why would gavin on the documentary say that mj slept on the floor,and then on the witness stand say that wasn’t the case?,and that now the story has changed to sleeping in the bed mj with him contradictions all over the place.

  • DrPat

    James, why don’t you yourself do as you have suggested, and cease writing your opinions on this case until the verdict is in?

    What’s that? Because you are really (at bottom) certain that Jacko is innocent? How is that different from the opposite opinion?

    All the battling quotes and contradictory evidence gleaned from the pages of pro-Jackson websites and fan-newsletters around the world will not serve to convince one person who has paid attention to all of the commentary on this issue – especially those who come to it unwilling to excuse Jackson at all costs.

    You can’t convince anyone who’s decided he’s a pedophile. They won’t convince you there is plenty of evidence he is one.

    And the arguments here in this forum won’t make a whit of difference in the outcome of this trial.

  • Eric Olsen

    DrPat is exactly right: preconceptions are critical to trials, that is why the system tries to find jurors who don’t have any.

    The volume and consistency of certain details between various accusers over time has me somewhat convinced that MJ is legally a pedophile. The testimony and his own statments and behavior have me convinced absolutely that he has inappropriate relationships with boys.

    There are ALWAYS discrepancies, holes, inconsistencies, self-interest, stupidity, greed, faulty memories, etc in ANY trial.

  • cookie

    Have you thought james that Gavin is a child who displays classic sypmtoms of an abused child who is taught to lie? yes he changed his story several times; thats a result of adults teaching you to display a different reality to the one adults are inflicting on you. Adults in such a situation would find it confusing let alone a young child. child abuse is unreal and sometimes you dont want to admit what is happening. You at least admit you wouldnt let your kids near your jacko. I will say again that MJ was an important icon of my youth, as a black women growing up in 80’s britain. His music and his dance style was mesmerising. But i still believe he is a sick perverter of adult child relationships. And no it is not ok for a child to sleep with an adult of 46 in any circumstance. The adult should know better. The ADULT here is michael who befriended a medically sick child, and chose to sleep in his room. That makes him sick. I beleive gavin. It takes guts to fight, and his mum has also abused him by failing to protect her child. 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys are molested in USA. This disease is bigger than you think. someone you know has been molested. 99.9% of perportrators never get reported because of people like you who chose to think children are vindictive little liars when in fact they have been given a lifesentence. And yes i am biased!!!

  • Eric Olsen

    very powerful Cookie – and I agree with everyone that the parents involved have all behaved despicably

  • james mclafferty

    I think we’d better agree to disagree.My freind who iv’e known for 15 years was molested by both her Brother and her father, and it saddens me the effect it has had on her life so don’t give this crap about i think kids are vindictive.The effect it has had on her is that she thinks the only way she can get close to somebody is by having sex with her.I have had many opportunities to have casual sex with her but refused to accept any offers from her because i feel i would be taking advantage of her and in a way indirectly alowwing myself to demean her even further .And the way she has been affected by it upsets me greatly so you are waaaayy! off with your assumptions.She thinks it’s “NORMAL” to be promiscous with out any ties which is so wrong.And believe it or not i don’t blame gavin at all so that’s had ya i think the mother has orchestrated it all and that the kid is cruelly being used as a porn and will end up even more fucked up because of it so don’t make assumptions.The evidence in this case has not been alarm bell ringing yet if the defence can prove the prosecution wrong at the end of this i will totally agree with you but until then along with sandra smallson and others my “CURRENT” AND I EMPHASISE “CURRENT” GUT FEELING IS THAT HE IS INNOCENT.In actual fact my favourute singer is mariah carey not mj so this dillusional fan idea holds no water.Instead of getting bitchy because i’m not saying what you want me to say why don’t you give a constructive arguement.

  • james mclafferty

    i meant if the defence can’t prove the prosecution wrong i will totally agree with you.

  • Eric Olsen

    that’s fine James, I still think you’re still a nice person (smile)

  • james mclafferty

    Cheers eric it’s apreciated even though i may not neccesarily comment on your other blogs i read them with interest.At least this forum is doing what it’s supposed to:-)oh and even if you don’t like mariahs voice youv’e got to say she’s a babe!.I look forward to reading everybody’s opinions with interest and never intend to offend so sorry if i have.I will give as much input as i can and now iv’e found this site i’ll probably continue to use it long after the trial it’s 21:30pm here so i’m gonna chill out with the playstation before i go to bed have a good evening and be sure you’ll hear from me every day during this trial.As i say i dont intend to offend and will try to just put my own thoughts as i see them.

  • james mclafferty

    I do feel a great sadness for my friend and think about her most of the time i wish i could make her see that she doesn’t have to live her life the way she does.But it’s all she knows.Ok see ya’ll tomorrow:-))

  • james mclafferty

    And like i said cookie he isn’t my “precious” jacko.If everybody agreed on everything the world would be a boring place so you too have a good evening.I just wish my friend was here to comment.:-),:(

  • cookie

    I wasnt trying to insult you James, i was just personalising this to you so i could get you to think about the issue of abuse. Just like your gut instinct tells you its NOT, my abuse antenna is telling me it IS. A not guilty verdict by the jury and judge wont mean they have made the right decision; it just means the advesarial system of justice has won. Can you imagine if every person who has abused children was jailed or found guilty, plenty of people you and I know would be behind bars but most guilty people arent jailed and i fear that this will be the case with jacko too. What does your friend think about MJ?

  • james mclafferty

    Hi COOKIE no problem:-).She’s not sure, she says her gut instinct is that he’s guilty, but she wants to wait until she hears what the defence has to say i would say she thinks he’s guilty.The problem is the only two people who know if anything went on is gavin and michael.I don’t mean to pry but were you abused at any point in your life?.And your right about abusers never being found out she’s still in contact with her dad and when he’s there when i go round i find it very hard to act friendly and pretend i don’t know,i feel guilty but if i know her father or brother is there i don’t go to see her because i probably wouldn’t be able to hold back what i know about them,she needs to find her way of geting out of the situation she’s in because she doesn’t welcome my advice about her father she feels she still has to protect him because she says he’s sorry .

  • james mclafferty

    Eric, and others
    What do people think of this statement by jhon karrys(it would probably be of most interest to the americans on this site)

    John Karrys: America’s Eyes – Not Wide Shut Anymore

    Created: Wednesday, 20 April 2005

    “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

  • james mclafferty

    And another you might be interested in by dewayne wickham USA TODAY

    Mother of Jackson accuser deserves judgment
    “Please don’t judge me,” the mother of the boy Michael Jackson is accused of molesting wailed to jurors during her testimony last week. If only it were that easy.

    If Jackson is guilty of the sexual molestation charges he faces and is the wily predator that prosecutors in Santa Barbara County, Calif., claim, he deserves to be sent to prison for a long time. That determination soon will be made by the jury hearing the one-time pop star’s case.

    But no judgment � at least none that carries legal weight � will be rendered about the mother of Jackson’s accuser. That’s too bad, because despite her plaintive plea, she ought to be judged. And so should at least one other mother who testified in support of accusations that Jackson is a sexual predator.

    If what these women say is true, they ought to be judged by the law, too.

    During her testimony, the mother of Jackson’s accuser said that during a 2003 flight from Miami to California, she awoke to see Jackson licking her son’s head. Though this alarmed her, the woman said she did nothing. When the plane landed, she and her son spent the evening at Jackson’s ranch. The mother slept in a bungalow � and her son spent the night in Jackson’s bedroom. That’s her testimony.

    Mother didn’t protest

    Even after witnessing Jackson’s strange behavior on the plane, the woman didn’t say she protested this sleeping arrangement. She didn’t say she screamed and hollered. She didn’t testify that she sobbed over being separated from her son that night. She just pleaded with jurors: “Please don’t judge me.”

    But what kind of a mother would hand over her son for the night to someone she claims to have seen act strangely a few hours earlier?

    The mother told jurors that she and her children were held captive at Jackson’s Neverland Valley Ranch. But she left at least twice � once with her kids in tow, and another without them to get her legs waxed � only to return. If Jackson actually molested her son, who was then 13, she might be considered an accessory to this crime.

    And so, too, I think, might another woman who testified that Jackson molested her son in 1993, a criminal act with which he was never charged. Jackson reached an out-of-court settlement with her family in which he did not admit any wrongdoing. The agreement, an attorney testified, was done to protect Jackson’s image.

    In that case, the mother says she permitted her 13-year-old son to spend the night in bed with Jackson, then 34, after the pop singer cried over her refusal to let them go off together.

    Lavished with gifts

    The next day, Jackson gave her a gold Cartier bracelet and plied her with other gifts and shopping trips for months. During this time, the mother said she allowed Jackson to spend the night at her home about 30 times � visits during which he was allowed to sleep with her son.

    If Jackson is a child molester, this woman also deserves to be judged harshly. But that’s not likely to happen. Neither of these mothers faces criminal charges for what they did or didn’t do. And prosecutors, long intent on proving that Jackson is a sexual predator of young boys, have shown no interest in bringing to justice anyone who may have facilitated such forbidden lust.

    I’m willing to wait for the legal process to run its course before passing judgment on Jackson’s guilt. That’s the American way: innocent until proved guilty.

    But I don’t need to hear the jury’s verdict before reaching my own finding on the mothers whose testimony looms so large in Jackson’s trial. At the very least, they are guilty of the kind of reckless parenting that has caused more than a few women to lose custody of their children. At worst, they may have been criminally negligent.

    DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.

  • james mclafferty

    And Dr pat i am NOT absolutely certain he is innocent but i feel at the moment he is.Maybe i will be proved wrong.

  • cookie

    Yes i was abused and yes my abuser is still at large and yes he is probaly still doing it. I have no evidence except my word. And i have a distorted sense of reality just like Gavin. (i probaly wouldnt make it in the credibility league. But it doesnt meand it didnt happen.

    MJ admitted he shared a room with boys. Let me personalise this once again james, in this day and age when risks to children are so well publicised, would you befriend and share sleeping spaces with young boys? why not? how do you think it would look? do you think the man MJ and the pop star should know better than to entangle himself in such places? After the allegations in 93, any wise, dare i say innocent person, would not have risked his reputation with flippant remarks/ actions like on the Bashir documentary.

  • james mclafferty

    I’m sorry to hear you were abused,i had a feeling you had been shame they haven’t caught the B*****d who did this to you,i didn’t mean to be too personal but i was curious.And yes i do absolutely agree that he should know better i totally agree with you and i’m sorry that one arsehole in this world has managed to flip your life about so badly.

  • james mclafferty

    My friend has to see her abusers more than 0nce a week and is directly related by blood so i can’t understand why she gives the benefit of the doubt and if it wasn’t against her wishes i’d of knocked the crap out of them before now.So don’t think i don’t understand to a certain degree, but i will never be able to understand how you feel.You should hope i’m right about mj being innocent because it means one less child has been violated,the other side of the coin will be that gavin will be emotionally scarred for the rest of his life.

  • Eric Olsen

    I do think the prosecution overreached and should have zeroed in on the alcohol and abuse charges. But you also have to try the case you have. There is no question the mothers share culpability, as I have said quite strongly, but their shared culpability and the extreme flakiness of Janet Arviso doesn’t mean MJ didn’t do it. Her testimony wasn’t really necessary regarding the abuse and alcohol charges and the prosecution would have been better off without her.

  • james mclafferty

    I totally agree with you there eric(sound of eric fainting):-).

  • james mclafferty

    What does everybody think about this itness?
    By Wayne Parry

    2:15 p.m. April 21, 2005

    CLIFTON, N.J. – A potential defense witness in Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial is facing his own child sex charges.

    Ahmad Elatab, 18, was released Thursday from Passaic County Jail in Paterson after posting $25,000 bail. He faces charges of sexual assault, criminal sexual contact and impairing the morals of a minor.

    Police said a 14-year-old Paramus Catholic High School girl who knew the 18-year-old from a belly-dancing class invited Elatab to her home while her parents were sleeping on April 11.

    They watched pornographic discs and other computer-generated images that Elatab had brought, police said, and the girl told them Elatab bragged that he had been at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch and had seen the pop star seduce a girl.

    “The victim told us that Mr. Elatab told her he had been to Michael Jackson’s home and seen Mr. Jackson seduce a girl, and he (Elatab) wanted to do the same to her,” police Capt. Robert Rowan said.

    Messages left at two New Jersey residences listed to an Elatab family were not immediately returned.

    When questioned by detectives, Elatab denied having said anything about watching Jackson seduce a girl, Rowan told reporters.

    “He said the only thing he said about Michael Jackson was that Michael Jackson was very smooth, and that Mr. Jackson knew how to talk to women,” Rowan said.

    Authorities were alerted a week after the alleged New Jersey assault when a teacher intercepted a graphic note about the encounter the girl was passing to a classmate.

    The girl told officers some parts of the encounter were consensual, but she also said some were not because she said some acts were forced on her. Elatab was arrested Tuesday, and maintains that all the activity was consensual, Rowan said. But because the girl is only 14 years old, whether she consented or not is irrelevant legally, he added. The age of consent in New Jersey is 16.

    By speaking with the Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office on Thursday, Clifton police confirmed that Elatab is on the list of potential defense witnesses for Jackson’s child molestation trial in California, Rowan said.

    Elatab had befriended Jackson’s cancer-stricken accuser and said the boy told him Jackson helped him fight the illness through meditation.

    Elatab said he spoke with the boy when Jackson took them on an outing to a Toys R Us store in 2003. He said the boy believed his cancer was gone because of Jackson.

    In a December 2003 interview with The Associated Press, Elatab said Jackson’s accuser also told him during the March 2003 outing that Jackson was a father figure to him and that he never saw Jackson do anything inappropriate.

    “He gives all the kids fatherly love, nothing sexual,” Elatab said at the time. “Michael never touches him inappropriately and he never touches Michael inappropriately. They just hold hands, all the kids hold hands with Michael. It’s fatherly.”

  • Eric Olsen

    doesn’t sound good

  • mihos

    Interesting reading. Eric, I can assure you I am not a plant from the Jackson camp. Nor am I a fan or a rabid defender of Jackson.
    The issue of race can’t be wagged off that easily. This morning I was studying a psychology text book and came across a discussion of dog breeds. Artificial selection has perpetuated gene pools of animals with specific behavioral traits.
    The discussion continues along those lines. Snoop dog is a credentialled black American that exploits women, glamorizes illegal drug use, rampant materialism, mysogyny and gang violence. Snoop dog is an American cultural icon.
    His music is blasted from sports fields and he is a frequent guest on talk shows and so on. Elvis married a fourteen year old girl…He died a fat drug addict.
    Yet that fourteen year old girl remarried twice and still uses his name.
    She declared on Oprah that Jackson was using Jackson.From the coverage no one saw the irony in the pathetic attempt to generate interest in Lisa’s album by talking about Jackson. Elvis never sold a quarter of the albums jackson has internationally. But Elvis is white.
    so anything Jackson does is inferior.
    Snoop dog is accepted because he represents the establishment where blacks know they are blacks and revel in their intellectual inferiority.

    Race is an enormous factor in this trial though a great deal of people will disagree with me. For those people, America is a fair society where race is no longer an issue at least in their minds.
    After several months of crunching data on the trial coverage the conviction remains and if anything has only been enhanced over the last few weeks.
    More salacious charges the whole vaseline story was amazing, so amazing it lacks credibility. Yet =Court TV and the Drudge Report covered it word to word even though that testimony came from a person who was discredited in a court of law. The person who made that claim was countersued successfully in a court of law. THis information was not covered with anything close to equal interest.
    It was evidently a case of ratings.
    Salacious accusations leaked by the prosection to the press persecution team headed by Dimond and Grace ( an incredibly unethical action worth its own discussion) were covered widely and repeated on ticker tape in some instances. Three press reports acknowledged that the accusor in this instance had been found guilty of malicious intent, fraud and theft by two separate courts of law. Court TV failed to cover this aspect. It was not an issue for Grace or Dimond or their recent court tv pitbull whose name escapes me. When the judge refused the prosecution’s request to include the vaseline “evidence”, the issue was for all intensive purposes laid to rest.
    Again, from our academic overview of preliminary data collected from major media press releases and TV reports there is an enormous bias against Jackson and has been from the start.

    Each and every allegation made to date, can be linked to a single attorney infamous for his take down technique and a group of National Enquirer editors and tabloid middlemen.

    My passion is for our judical system.
    It is odd how often bloggers have taken personal shots against authors that appear to be defending the accused.
    I am not taking sides here.
    The information i have provided are simply segments of facts that are underreported or ignored entirely.

    It may not be something that many white people want to hear or read. Students and faculty alike find it uncomfortable
    to digest. Vermont is a mighty white state. We pride ourselves with the selection of our student body and faculty- some of the best and brightest obviously. And we have very few non Caucasian students and fewer non-caucasian faculty or staff.

    So it has been illuminating to observe the trial and its coverage as it is deconstructed and its parts and attributes reexamined.
    This case is very much about race and class. The county the Jackson trial takes place in has one of the largest populations of white supremacists in California. There have been over seven hundred cases brought against Santa Barbara police since 1990 for excessive force, racial profiling etc.
    Jackson’s home his profile and the poor inner city children he entertains by the busload are an unwanted element in this county.
    There is also a great deal of evidence that Jackson’s own publishing holdings eclipse that of the Beatles catalogue.
    Regardless, his cobined publishing empire is worth over three billion dollars. Corporate takeovers have become American classics. There are substantiated facts pointing to a conspiracy that would bilk Jackson of his holdings.

    In all our efforts to uncover real evidence real corroborated evidence of child molestation, we have not been able to locate a single instance where fiduciary gain or press earned hubris /noteriety were not the objective of accusations of child molest.

    Lastly, Jackson’s appearance is the most reported topic followed by sex molest charges. At the height of his career, Jackson gained a great deal of press.
    However, compared to contemporaries, Madonna, Sting and Bruce Springsteen,
    Jackson’s press coverage is eclipsed.

    The only time Jackson was covered, was due to sensationalism and PR work.
    The press was simply not interested in his genius, opting instead to magnify his celebrity.
    In the end, there is alot of misinformation some of it provided by Jackson’s own press junket, are the basis of what an average person knws about Jackson. The facts disucssed on court tv are sensational gossip very little of it is actual fact. people repeat it piece meal as fact. No one doubts the integrity or ethics of the reporters because they are Caucasian women circling the child predator’s castle.
    THe defamation of character for minorities in this country carries an additional weight that is difficult to describe adequately.
    Jackson’s heritage for example is never acknowledged because Black Indians do not exist in the demographic of the entertainment industry and are an unfortunate chapter in American history.
    The very features many people believe are the product of plastic surgery are Jackson’s own and accrued from his recent Black Indian ancestors that marched the Trail of Tears only to be turned away from the promises of the government for being racially admixtured.

    Jackson’s vitiligo and true health conditions are of no concern for most people because they enjoy detesting the luminary.
    since he is no longer ethnically recognizeable and dangerously androgynous in appearance, jackson had made himself into a target for racially motivated contempt.
    It is social dominance of the white hegemonies that has engendered omissions of facts that would have provided intellectualization of jackson’s genius.

    Jackson would have grown with that intellectualization as is the case with Madonna who learned from the exhaustive coverage of her art and celebrity and evolved in kind.
    Jackson’s genius is underated and underacknowledged.
    He is not entirely persuasive nor articulate in describing his own motivations and goals.
    But Jackson is smart like a fox.
    Most bloggers go to the task of attacking jackson for his appearance, for his supposed predilictions to molest young boys and for his terrible taste in music and costume.
    These are generally thinly veiled attacks launched by those whites that feel threatened by jackson’s refusal to play by the rules. he is anti establishment. But marginalizing his contributions and villifying his character are what have created his personal obsession to challenge bigoted notions of just what is possible for a person born poor and black indian in the
    poorest neighborhoods of Gary Indiana.

    Getting back to the coverage of the trial – just read the comments on this post- people tend to believe what is said about jackson by his detractors piece meal. The only activation of critical thinking employed is to prosecute jackson and prove the case against him.
    Omission of facts and overreporting of sensationalist smears is how Niggers and Indians have been lynched with traditionally.
    Jackson is a monster a sub human who dares to defy his second class status as a non caucasian by appearing whiter than the average white person.
    This is at the heart of the issue even if it is subliminal.
    jackson must be punished for not knowing his place.
    One wonders if there would be as much interest in the case if the young men in question were black and not caucasian.

    we are interested in hearing the defense’s case but more interested in how the mainstream media will shift its coils to redefine their role in this travesty of justice.

  • Eric Olsen

    I’m sure there is some truth to the “not knowing his place” angle, and much of what you say is logical and intellectually incisive; but then you trot out absolutely stereotypical nonsensical generalizations and it all kind of falls apart. Also, when discussign people, use “who” rather than “that”

  • james mclafferty

    Can i just say,i am of the caucasion persuasion and don’t on the whole see the colour of a person.This is not directed at anybody in particular but the world has always been a multi ethnic place so different coloured people are nothing new,so why is there such prejudice still in the world?,it’s maybe the human condition to find fault with people who are “different”to themselves so that they feel better with themselves.Bear in mind that apart from people who have ethnic roots the usa was a colony of the uk so most americans ancestors come from britain which is a “white” and i use the term very loosely area of the world.And if it comes to it if you go back far enough we are all descendants from africa so we are all the same inside our skins.Colour on the whole only reflects a families origin.And doesn’t determine the type of person they are.People should stop using the race card.

  • james mclafferty

    Can i just say if iv’e offended anybody with what i just wrote im sorry and didn’t intend to my point was creed and colour shouldn’t matter we are all people.

  • Eric Olsen

    well-put James, unfortunately not everyone thinks like you

  • james mclafferty

    Sad,but true eric

  • james mclafferty

    I don’t want to get off the subject of this forum but us in the uk have got a lot more in common with you lot in the usa then we have europe.Europe is a tottally different way of life which is why i don’t want britain to be included in it, because were nothing like them and secondly we’d lose our identity and the british pound.We are the two nations that on the whole get on the best.Oh well enough of politics and lets see what happens in this trial.

  • Mihos

    Point of order:
    Two luminaries same first name different race classification:
    Colin Farrell
    Colin Powell
    Why do reporters consistently pronounce Powell’s name as if he were anally fixated?
    Powell has corrected this many times.
    Is this a form of subliminal racism which pundits inadvertently reveal- Freudian slip?

  • Eric Olsen

    Mihos, my primary concern about the way you appear to think is that seeing racial issues where there are none detracts from the recognition of the real racism that is qithout question still among us

  • Mihos

    Why not try answering the actual question?
    Almost without exception, reporters pronounce Colin Powell’s name as colon Powell. Colin Farrell is always pronounced correctly.
    Turn on the tv and watch headline news cnn or Fox- It wasnt something i discovered. A student just gave presentation on subliminal name slips. Soddom Hussein for example.
    My own thoughts on the issue are not the crux here. Yours are.
    The challenge is to open your own mind enough to recognize parameter walls used
    historically in discussing non Caucasians in news reporting by Caucasians for Caucasians and their Eurocentric former slaves.
    The world for some people is white or black – civil rights is white or black male or female-
    whites are considered morally and intellectually superior to non cerebral, gratification oriented non- caucasians.

    remember the Orangutan dance number in disney’s JungleBook movie? How many generations of children watched the apes and monkeys singing like black people?
    do you remember the lyric?
    something to the effect of I want to be just like you- look like you talk like you dress like you monkey see monkey do-
    This is probably one of the more benign
    forms of subtle racism and a good example of how previous generations instructed their young children how to internalize the voices of civil rights advocates.
    The black man the sub human ape the aboriginal peoples they want to be like us and they will pretend to be like us but they are not ever going to be like us. We are better than them. We are justified in our cultural imperialism and land grabs.
    Recent instruction of young people appears to be coming from MTV and the major news media. Flowers for Columbine is a good reference of where Im going with this.
    As passive consumers of news information , naive enough to never believe that anything we are watching/reading is out of sorts with facts we were manipulated.
    We were shocked that well to do white kids in republican land massacred one another before turning their guns on themselves.
    a similar massacre has just occured on one of North America’s poorest Indian reservations.
    It was barely covered. Savages will be savages? what do you think?
    Why is the tragedy of the Red Lake massacre less press worthy than Columbine? Does the western imperialist usurper lack empathy for the doomed indigine’?

    In the Jackson case people make hateful comments based on their own prejudice which Jackson apparently invites.
    A jester poking fun at our intractable bigotry? A former pickaninny wearing white face and a fright wig is too much to stomach but Marilyn Manson and Trent Reznor are admired?
    Why the double standard?

    Colin Powell is dragged out by the administration and or the press at the drop of a dime to make a huge impression.
    No one at the UN referred to Mr. Powell as Colon when he tried to sell the war of mass destruction.
    Necons and their reporters are the worst
    in this regard. Colon Colon Colon.
    Its a freudian slip and one Black Americans are more aware of than their White peers. It is a non subtle signal of a level of disrespect and marginalization by a facet of the white establishment that owns, administers and
    produces the news media.
    Try thinking about the issue however small it is may be from the perspective of someone who is not Caucasian.

  • james mclafferty

    The monkey in the jungle book mihos was singing about wanting to be like a human full stop i don’t think there was anything racial suggested mate.Remember racism isn’t restricted to the colour of somebody’s skin,racism can be somebody not liking the japanese or the irish,etc.We in england have a minority group called the national front who are predominantly white people who have a problem if your irish,black,scottish,french,etc.And they are quite violent towards these people are racist towards anybody that’s not english.

  • DrPat

    I know this will pass right by your sensors, mihos, but it is far more likely that the mispronunciation of Powell’s first name is influenced by the vowels in his last name than by his skin color.

    I once worked with a man named “John Colon,” pronounced “Collin.” He went by the first name “Jack,” because when he did found people pronounced his last name correctly.

    And are you aware that “Sodom” Hussein was not an unconscious Freudian slip, but a deliberate choice by Bush ’41?

  • Mihos

    The monkey was an ape actually a cartoon depiction of an ape that wanted to be a human james. Place it into the context of time and political realities of the USA at that moment. It was like Briar Rabbit which
    preceded it a highly racist piece of propaganda. Briar Rabbit is no longer available but features many of the same backwards stereotypical depicitons of shiftless blacks that sing minstrel tunes.
    Strange how no one is getting the whole minstrel topic. But then you aren’t American! So to you it is just entertainment nothing more nothing less.
    Here it is political commentary.
    The briar rabbit characters – shiftless bears with the voices of white actors imitating blacks are essentially identical to the characters in the junglebook – shiftless if colourful and musically inclined apes and monkeys.

    The point being that in the USA, an establishment with an openly racist past
    has a tendency to inadvertently regress to insensitivity and blatant bigotry.
    I like the explanation for Colin Powell’s name errors- though not entirely. Subliminal disrespect is still a potential factor. I doubt anyone not living in the USA with a good grasp of unfortunate history events will get where Im going here.
    Regardless, Jackson is being tarred and feathered in America by Americans for crimes against nature.
    The prosecution shouldn’t rest until they add the correct vernacular.
    Jackson is a crime against nature.
    For this he must be villified.
    Is he a child molestor?
    We haven’t discovered a single substantiated instance.
    We have uncovered reems of salacious tabloid reports which all of us are now familiar.
    The lack of empathy for Jackson is easier to accept. The disrespect for his family and the brazen smear campaign continues unabated- by a hegemony perpetuated by White media moguls and their henchmen.
    THis trial will be studied by the world as an incredible snapshot into the minds and mechanisms of Americanism.

  • james mclafferty

    Hi mihos:-)),is an ape not a monkey?,never mind,as you know mate i’m pro jackson and think he is innoccent,i have all the empathy in the world for mj and think that he is being stitched up,We had the black and white minstrels over here but i’m 27yrs old and think they were before our time we also had teddy bears called golly wogs i don’t know if you had them in u.s.a but they were banned here because they said it was racist.I wanna know what was the difference between a coloured person buying a white doll and it being deemed allright, but a white person owning a coloured golly wog doll as racist?.To me the golly wog was just a symbol of robinsons jam and couldn’t understand what the problem was.As iv’e said before our two countries aren’t that different you know.People think we talk like the badly made films of yesteryear,where they speak in the queens english i tell you what if you heard the birmingham accent you’d think different.The point is i understand to a degree what your’e saying but colour should not be an issue whether you live here in the uk or on the moon.Tom sneddon is a sad failing DA who wants to go out in a bang and i hate to tell him but it probably won’t happen,Mihos i want him to be innocent as much as you do because iv’e invested a lot of my time to his music.Lets see how the defence case goes, i want to try to be constructive in my opinions and hear both sides but i really want him to be innocent.If proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty we’d have to accept it:-(

  • james mclafferty

    (but i don’t at the moment think he will be found guilty)

  • Mihos

    I must confess something James.
    I don’t want Michael Jackson to be innocent. I don’t want Michael JAckson to be guilty. My interest is an academic one. While it is refreshing that you yourself reside in a raceless world, Michael Jackson does not.
    Surely you must be aware that leaking information from the trial before it is allowed in as testimony is unethical?
    It becomes racial when the prosecution and its media loyalists who happen to be from a different generation than you and happen to be lily white, abuse the civil rights of the accused who is evidentally not equal in the mind of most Americans with the prosecution in that there is no outcry that his unalienable rights are consistently abused. This connivance has fiduciary and hubris to gain. Together, the prosecution, tabloid grifters and media news reporters either unwittingly or knowingly conspire to violate the civil rights of the accused who happens to be of Black and American Indian descent.

    It is often racist or minimally Eurocentric reporting however subtle, when the American Indian component of the Jackson Family’s heritage is willfully ommitted to bolster the theory ( which sells papers) that Jackson detests ” his own race” and has altered his appearance to look ” like a white person”.

    As a non racist white person this may seem loony to you and to many readers.
    But whites have rarely experienced the sort of large scale genocide and marginalization that American Indians and American African Slaves experienced on this continent.
    Again, Jackson’s very recent ancestors were slaves of Indians or Whites.
    Jackson’s parents had no civil rights until very recently.

    When the press turns a blind eye to its own history of omission we shouldn’t be surprised. But when bloggers do so they often forget that they are generally of the entitled race, the chosen superior race whose recent ancestors were cultural imperialists and other forms of land grab masters who created and institutionalized a whole lexicon of demeaning terminologies for the lesser races. The recent ancestors of each and every one of us clothed our even more recent ancestors and fed their children’s children with slightly more refined customs tipping the scales in their favor.
    The legal system is flawed in the United States of America. It perpetuates the cycle of disspossesion and racial stereotyping.
    Most of the individuals in prison in the USA are of African or American Indian decent ( including the Spanish speaking Indians referred to commonly as Illegal Aliens). Statistics and studies are often published showing the inadequacies of the judicial system. White Americans tend to have very different experiences than their non-white peers in the court of detention.
    Just because Jackson is a luminary worth upwards of five or seven billion dollars does not guarantee that his civil rights have not been violated though this sentiment is commonly affected by court watchers.

    Leaking information in a public smear campaign is recognized as libel when white folks persecute other white folks. In this instance very few people are at all concerned how badly the civil rights of Jackson and even his accusor’s family have been vviolated. It wouldn’t bother them as it is entertaining and scandal sells copy. It won’t concern any American until their own civil rights are stolen out from under them by a powerful all white boys club and they are obliged to cough up millions of dollars in legal bills and prevail though humiliating, dehumanizing character assasination.

  • Mihos

    Below please find an illuminatingly subtle commentary on the nature of American determinism.
    Of course your readers will not read it too literally because they know full well that petroleum products are very harmful to Afro hair and are not used in Black hair products for this reason.
    A racist commentary that has Tiger Woods eating fried chicken and watermelon at the open would put vaseline in Michael Jackson’s hairy palm and have him raping little white boys as an addendum.

    Slippery slope

    Vaseline jelly has a variety of uses. Now it is even being used to smear Michael Jackson

    John Sutherland
    Monday April 25, 2005
    The Guardian

    The Jackson trial pollutes everything it touches: Peter Pan, motherhood, circus elephants – above all, American justice. One presumes the man (man?) is innocent. But does anyone think that even if guilty, and the convicted monster of Neverland spends the rest of his days banged up in a cell with a tattooed biker, any child in southern California will be safer?
    Now even the household jar of Vaseline has been defiled. The “smear” was spewed out on their websites last Thursday by those two reverse sewage spigots, Matt Drudge and Smoking Gun.

    For the “grand finale” of the state’s case, Drudge breathlessly reported, the prosecution “hopes to present a shocking story of Vaseline and alleged sex abuse”. In 1993 a former Neverland security guard, Abdool (everything about this trial is surreal), was instructed by an “aroused King of Pop” to bring some Vaseline from the glove compartment of the star’s SUV to the bedroom where he was hanging out (“wearing only his pajama bottoms”) with a kid who Abdool “believed was Jordie”.
    Once it had been leaked from supposedly sealed court documents, news agencies were duty-bound, sanctimoniously holding their noses, to put the Vaseline story into the public domain.

    The PR people at Unilever must have groaned. The multinational company bought the brand name in 1987. They have put millions into burnishing Vaseline’s image – particularly with schoolchildren.

    Unilever did not invent Vaseline. That credit goes to Robert Chesebrough, an English chemist who emigrated to the US in the 1850s. Young Chesebrough went into the kerosene business and was quick to see that the future of the fuel that lit and warmed America was in Pennsylvania, where the first American oil fields were being drilled.

    When he went there, Chesebrough noticed that roughnecks who worked the rigs were maddened by a gelatinous black gunk that clogged up their drills. They called it “rod wax” and were constantly having to wipe the stuff away. But these same working Joes, Chesebrough was interested to see, slapped “rod wax” on their cuts to help them heal faster.

    Chesebrough took some jelly to his lab and tested its healing property on himself. It worked. He soon had a fleet of wagons trundling around the country distributing “Vaseline” (a barbarous combination of the German “wasser”, and the Greek “elaion”: “water-oil”).

    Chesebrough was an evangelist. In front of rapt audiences he would burn his skin with acid and then anoint the wounds with his wonder-jelly, pointing to earlier scars Vaseline had healed. Next day, every druggist in town would have bought a wagonload.

    Chesebrough’s patented jelly was translucent. Unlike vegetable or animal oils, it didn’t go rancid or smell, except faintly of hospitals. It had that quality which all pharmaceutical products aspire to – purity. Vaseline was so pure it was virtually Platonic.

    The distinctive property of Vaseline is its resistance to water. It will weatherproof footwear, safeguard wounds, and soothe chapped lips. It has innumerable household uses. It is the base ingredient in a vast range of cosmetics and pomades (Jackson must have used vats of the stuff in his Jeri-Curl days).

    Beauty queens dab Vaseline on their teeth for that flashing smile. Bulls in the Spanish corrida have Vaseline smeared on their eyes, to make them charge wildly (bull’s eye-smearer must be one of the less desirable offerings at the Madrid jobcentre). Cross-channel swimmers slather themselves with it. Japesters daub it on lavatory seats (you wipe it on, they can’t wipe it off). Photographers get artistic effects with Vaseline on the lens. Chesebrough, a man who believed in his product, swallowed a spoonful of it every day. He lived to be 96.

    Notoriously, it has less salubrious usages. But “rod wax” is the one thing Vaseline shouldn’t be used for. It does bad things to latex condoms and has other disadvantages as an intimate lubricant. It’s not, as Talking Heads naughtily implied, the sand in the Vaseline that does the damage. It’s the Vaseline in the Vaseline.

    Would a man as morbidly nervous as Jackson about things medical not know that? Would someone as pampered as Jackson remember what one of his chauffeurs had stuffed into the glove compartment of one of his cars?

    If Abdool is the best the prosecution has for its “grand finale”, the show’s over.

  • Eric Olsen

    show me where Powell has said how he wants his first name pronounced. Bush and his administration pronounce it with the long O. It has always been pronounced with the long O. Are you telling me they don’t know how to pronounce his name?

    Your conclusion that the mispronunciation of his name — and I would very much like to see any evidence that the long O IS a mispronunciation — has a racial foundation strikes me as an amazing reach, and casts a very dim light on the rest of your assertions.


    Powell has most corrected his interviewer on meet the press ( twice) and cspan.


    That should have read: most recently


    It was no assertion of mine own. It is an open ended question, utilized in a similar manner as your sensationalized lead ins. The suggestion has many potential answers, most noteably one blogger explained the issue is one of vowel placements. I will assert that there is some subliminal disrespect for Powell by American press reporters who mispronounce his name almost without exception. English, German and Arab reporters do not mispronounce his name. Neither does Kofi Annan or most NPR radio reporters.

  • Eric Olsen

    point me to any written or audio evidence of this, please


    per your request, butt-kissing reference:


    Eric,thank you for helping our seminar argue a point. The wording of the original posit should have opened dialogue about Colin Powell’s controversial past, namely that he is not trusted nor respected by many neo cons familiar with his form of military status climbing. Nor is he respectedor trusted by people like Harry Belafonte who is also from the British West Indies and took issue with Powell on the war of mass destruction while correctly pronouncing Powell’s very British name.

    You Eric, took the slightly sensationalistic post to mean that I believed that an overally simplistic notion of racism is at the root of the Powell slip ups. The topic I was hedging on is press coverage and bias in reporting.
    In Powell’s case, the Freudian slip ups may be well placed. He appears to some parties as a perrenial butt kisser.


    The Neo cons never really respected Colin anyway, even begrudgingly because they are at their foundations racists elitists. The press loyal to ne cons- fox news for example, cant be bothered to even attempt to pronounce Powell’s name correctly but this has more to o with their demographics of angry white men than any deep knowledge or even interest in arms sales.
    We have a crisis of ethics to deal with. Its all too often the case that press and blog sphere discuss issues in for or against terminologies- greater than lesser than and never beens. These are terms and definitions used by social directionalists to justify racial segregation.
    Innocent bystanders with ‘consevative’ view points often fall into the trap of repeating fatally flawed ideologies by failing to appreciate the burden bestowed on stewards of entitled opinion.

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t see anything in the Hitchens story about pronunciation

    as someone with 30 years experience in the broadcast media, I can assure you that the proper pronunciation of a public figure’s name, especially one as prominent as Powell, is of concern to the point of fixation.


    …come on Eric Olsen,
    you’re smiling ear to ear.
    We caught you in your own brouhaha (sic) why cant I spell? Why is my grammar so terrible? English is not my first language! But that is no excuse.
    There is nothing about pronounciation in the Hitchens story in the most literal sense. It is present in a very subtle and telling prose. Powell is a perrenial buttkisser say the boys in the hall who hated his guts anyway.

    His name is pronounced colon by people who are paid to present unbiased reports. Does race play into the slip?
    Don’t know. But Black British West Indians take offense of the slight as if it does. Regardless, the issue is bias and how it is perceived by different people with different culural backgrounds.

    Bloggers and reporters quick to brush aside racism claims of the Jackson defense camp are of the white entitled sort, the same group the prosecution comes from. Bias and prejudice are not recognized by prosecution or many entitled opinion creators.
    When pushed about it an overally simplistic notion of accountability and due process emerge from the dialogue both mine and yours.
    Are either more relevant?

  • james mclaffrety

    Hi MIHOS,i understand what you mean now mate,it’s easy for us in england to forget the time of slavery in the u.s,i must say your piece on vaseline was very interesting as i didn’t think it had that many uses. From your neutral position at the moment do you think he is guilty or innocent and why.What you write makes a lot of also explains why mj would have vaseline readily available,it’s quite refreshing to here a TOTALLY neutral person commenting and should be interested in what your study concludes, i think hes innocent but i am totally open to the fact that he may be guilty.And admittedly my grandparents and their friends are embarassingly(sp?),racist and it really shocks me sometimes.

  • Eric Olsen

    racism is ugly, should be shocking, and is still very real: that is why I am so offended when it is trivialized by being used to explain the weather and other utterly uninvolved phenomena

  • james mclafferty

    Hi eric:-),in what context is it used in the weather mate?

  • Eric Olsen

    it isn’t, I was exaggerating to make the point that the Michael Jackson case isn’t about racism, it’s about the behavior of Michael Jackson toward children, and in particular, boys.

    Jackson defenders say that he is being persecuted because he is a successful black man, or former black man, or some variation on the singled out for persecution theory. It is EXACTLY the opposite: any other person who has behaved in the manner he has over the last 15 years would have been crushed under the community thumb LONG ago.

  • james mclafferty

    Sorry eric,having a thick day(smile),i understand what you are saying mate:-)


    “Jackson defenders say that he is being persecuted because he is a successful black man, or former black man, or some variation on the singled out for persecution theory.”

    Actually Eric I will prefer that you resist defining a group of academics studying the case as Jackson defenders. We are not now and will never be Jackson defenders or apologists. I for one have never suggested Jackson was singled out and I have never described Jackson as a black man or a former black man.

    “I was exaggerating to make the point that the Michael Jackson case isn’t about racism, it’s about the behavior of Michael Jackson toward children, and in particular, boys.”

    If the coverage of the trial and your own bloggery aren’t impeachable for cultural insensitivity and Euroecentric spin cycling than why have you failed to acknowledge that Jacksons parents are both descended of Black Indians?
    You are either callously dismissive of the point or willfully ignorant of the significance of this fact.
    I have read much of what has been written on this blogcritics board and so have nineteen students, five faculty and nine consulting parties.
    We haven’t singled you out. Your blog is homework.

    You claim that racism is awful. It is .
    Yet you continue to marginalize Jackson’s ethnicity and that of his family by describing him as a former black man.
    There is alot more to the Jacksons than being black luminaries.

    This case and your concern in bloggery realm speak about Jacksons Purported behavior with children was not effected by the transcripts of testimony from the recent guard/police officer who read off a huge list of visitors to Neverlanded kitch palace.
    The visitors log goes a very long way in explaining how and when people visit, where they they sleep and why they end up sleeping where they do.
    The facility is evidently an enormous hang out for literally hundreds of people at a time and this is going on every month of the year concurrently with these accusations. THe picture we had before the transcripts was that Jackson lived all alone in his pedarest palace with a few young boys in his bedroom.
    This police officer could not corroborate that sentiment and though a witness for the prosecution and under pressure from his employers in the Santa Barbara white’s only police force, actually gave credence to some of the defense’s assertions.
    Why don’t you know about that testimony? You certainly have found the time and ambition to post up salacious headlines like this one.
    I might argue that you didn’t find the testimony from the prosecution witness because it has been underreported which is another example of what I am referring to.
    The coverage of this trial is biased against the defense.
    My posit that there are racial underpinnings is brushed off as nonsense even while few can explain where all the leaked transcripts of accusations came from and we read first hand the whole vaseline smear.

    A racist white person might believe that blacks use vaseline to grease their rape of little white boys.
    Another might suggest that perhaps Jackson keeps the stuff around for his hair.
    Either way the accusation was a split hair away from a racist joke, the sort of joke law enforcement officers perpetuate at the expense of prisoner rape victims in facilities where racial segregation and barbaric acts are facilitated by the white majority that administer these facilities.

    It was a salacious rumour, a racist one at that without merit.
    And that rumour was repeated piecemeal by an alarming number of news media outlets.
    So Eric, let me ask you directly.
    Where did that leaked testimony come from?
    ISnt that testimony supposed to be kept confidential since it may prejudice a jury?
    Whose interests are served when that information is leaked to the court of public opinion?
    Do you believe for one instant that Diane Dimond and retinue are vassals of California’s powerful white dominated judicial system?
    Or are they just bedfellows?
    Who should be made accountable for the false information, the slanderous and disgusting rumours? WHo should be held responsible for the insult to Jackson’s children, to his family?

    Here is where a Jackson detractor which I generally count myself for your information, will chime in, Jackson doesn’t get any of my empathy much less sympathy.
    But in this one instance and there are at least six others we have carefully
    studied, there was no substantiated facts behind the accusation. There was no way the prosecution was going to squeaze that crap into the trial with or without petrol jelly. ANd this is why They leaked it to the tabloid press who repeated it piecemeal. And insensitive dolts who subconsciously believe that non Caucasians lives, their psychological state of being, their dignity, their families sense of self and purpose – for those that believe that non Caucasians lives are less important, less significant and basically inferior to those of Caucasians are class AAA bigots.
    For those individuals who didn’t even blink over that ridicuous story you know who you are and you know why you think the way you do.
    Eric claims that Jackson’s behavior with children is inappropriate and especially that with young boys.
    Out contention from actually studying what has been reported and what has been spun, is that NOTHING about Jackson that makes the press if noteable for its factual nature.
    There is and has always been a bias against press coverage of black luminaries in white dominated cultures. The USA is no exception.
    Salacious rumours and prejudice are willingly spread by a class of unethical journalists and reporters in bed with more of the same pundits.

    There are themes to major news stories people. This is a major news story the world over.
    Some may pretend that this case is about child assault and pedastry.
    Others will pretend it is all a conspiracy of an aggressive corporative take down.
    Still others will point to the race issue.

    We try and weigh all three and others.
    But not a single person can pretend to believe that these reports of Jacksons purported behavior with young boys are to be taken seriously!
    We studied the documentary and its transcripts.
    We know precicely what Jackson said about sharing his bed with the accusor.

    We also are documenting what pundits, bloggers, tabloid styled journalists and reporters are saying about the trial and the character of the individual accused and the accusors.

    Don’t let me over simplify by branding you Eric Olsen as a racist.
    Let it be clear that this is not something I am suggesting here. I am suggesting that hyperbole that lacks any resonance of personal accountability for the rumour perpetuators and faceless posturing by the entitled few add up to more of the same old traditional lynching.
    JOan of Arc was a Caucasian woman and she was castigated and persecuted for what and how?
    Where does the measure begin?
    With the first insult or the first act of violence?
    Are you waiting for Jackson to be targeted and murdered in prison for a crime he may not have committed or are you willing to insure that some lunatic free on bail targets Jackson or his family for what has transpired in the court of public opinion?
    Read the scandal laced headings of your blog topics of this case!
    What are you accountable for?
    Is your opinion and sense of humour of more worth than Jackson’s right to a fair trial?
    If you truly believe Jackson is guilty why aren’t you and more people furious over the prosecution’s pathetic case, and its highly unethical and illegal testimony leaks?
    Jackson can win an aquittal based on this sort of nonsense.
    A mistrial is lurking under the spot light of percecution.
    If he is guilty of these charges, why has this case been so incredibly comprimised?
    And why do intellegent people like yourself continue to labor under the guise of concern for child abuse victims? If child abuse meant anything at all to the prosecution, to opinion spinners or to you, you would force the conversation back to facts instead of basing your arguments on unsubstantiated rumours which are largely the product of a smear campaign.
    These are dirty tricks employed by people with no ethics.
    That they occur to minorities without so much as a gasp is a wake up call.
    That anyone that points out the facts is called a jackofile is still more enlightening. How about somebody turn off the coffee pot before the whole damned thing burns up.
    The brew is inedible at this point.
    Pitch black and simmering with the pervasive rancor of the permanently scalded. The sentiments left in my mind from these snippets of dialogue and denial of omission suggest to me that this tarred coffee is made with the intention of ripping off the naive consumer of said product.
    Too bad justice and civil rights are that product.

  • Eric Olsen

    I understand the media-studies aspect of your project. It is very interesting and could well be enlightening. However, I am unwilling to take on the combined responsibility of the media on my personal shoulders. My responsibility is to report the facts that I report as accurately as possible, and to express myself, including my sense of humor.

    (This post is the only title I have exaggerated for humorous effect -that I can recall, anyway.)

    I am comfortable that I have done both and made it clear which I am doing at any given time.

    This entire story is both deeply tragic and hysterically funny at the same time. I have tried to convey both.

  • Eric Olsen

    oh, and I don’t pretend to be comprehensively covering this trial. I am not there, I am not a reporter on the scene. I report periodically when something seems noteworthy to me or seems to be of particular importance to the trial. I do NOT know if he is guilty in the legal sense of any of the charges. On the personal level, I am relatively, not completely, but reasonably convinced that he has engaged in improper physical and emotional behavior with a series of boys. That’s just my opinion, subject to change, but I doubt it will change. Anything is possible however.

  • swingingpuss

    I find this whole Jacko affair to be a waste of time but Eric’s posts do the job of keeping me abreast minus the sensationalism and adding the spice of humor.

  • Eric Olsen

    that was a very nice thing to say swingingpuss, thanks!

  • james Mclafferty

    FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE THAT THOUGHT DEBBIE ROWE WAS GONNA SINK JACKO READ THIS:Day 40: Michael Jackson’s Ex-wife: “He’s My Friend… No One Can Tell Me What To Say”

    Created: Wednesday, 27 April 2005

    Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    Michael JacksonOn Day 40 of Michael Jackson’s trial, Mr. Jackson’s ex-wife, Deborah Rowe described him from the witness stand at his child molestation trial as “my friend” and said, contrary to the prosecution’s claims, that she was never rehearsed to say positive things about him on a video interview made to rebut a damaging TV documentary.

    “I didn’t want anyone to be able to come back to me and say my interview was rehearsed,” Rowe said. “As Mr. Jackson knows, no one can tell me what to say.”

    Rowe, who is in a family court dispute over visitation with their children, Prince Michael and Paris, glanced at Mr. Jackson as she spoke. Mr. Jackson, dressed in a maroon suit, showed no obvious reaction to her testimony.

    Prosecutors called Rowe to support their conspiracy case against Mr. Jackson, who is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003. The case alleges Mr. Jackson conspired to hold the accuser’s family captive to get them to rebut the TV documentary “Living With Michael Mr. Jackson” by British journalist Martin Bashir.

    The accuser’s mother has claimed that a rebuttal video she made, praising Mr. Jackson as a father figure, was scripted.

    Rowe reiterated that she had been offered a list of questions by her interviewers but she declined to look at them before she talked.

    “It was a cold interview and I wanted to keep it that way,” she said.

    Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen asked her what she expected after she gave the interview.

    Teary, she said, “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.”

    Rowe appeared nervous at first as she told jurors “we’ve been friends and we were married.”

    “Are you the mother of his two elder children?” asked Zonen.

    “Yes,” she said, naming them.

    Asked about her domestic arrangements, she said, “We never shared a home … we never shared an apartment.”

    Rowe and Mr. Jackson married in November 1996. Prince Michael was born in February 1997, followed by Paris in April 1998. The couple filed for divorce in October 1999. Mr. Jackson has a third child, Prince Michael II, whose mother has remained anonymous.

    Rowe said she knew Mr. Jackson for perhaps 20 years before they married and once they divorced she was allowed visitation with the children for eight hours every 45 days. She said it was a tough schedule to keep because Mr. Jackson travels so much with the children and she finally relinquished all parental rights.

    “The visitations were not comfortable,” she said, explaining that they would meet at a hotel and “it was a very sterile environment.”

    In 2003, she said, she received a call through her former employer, a doctor who brought Mr. Jackson and her together. She said he told her that someone associated with Mr. Jackson wanted to talk to her and arranged a phone call for her with Marc Schaffel, who is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

    Mr. Jackson got on the phone briefly during that conversation, she said.

    “He told me there was a 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,” she testified.

    Rowe said her conversation with Mr. Jackson lasted perhaps 21⁄2 minutes and there was no discussion of what he wanted her to do other than to work with his associates.

    She said all she could recall him saying was, “There was a bad video coming out.”

    “Did he tell you with any specificity what he wanted you to do?” asked Zonen.

    “No,” she said.

    Michael JacksonHer testimony did link Mr. Jackson to the making of the rebuttal video. But her account offered less evidence than the persecution seemed to expect to tie Mr. Jackson to a conspiracy. She said she was not pressured to say anything specific and that there was “no quid pro quo.”

    Asked why she would help Mr. Jackson, she said, “I promised him I would always be there for Michael and the children.”

    She did not give any details of her private life with Mr. Jackson and made it clear that she did not want to discuss it.

    “My personal life was my personal life and no one’s business,” she said when asked by the prosecution if she had talked completely truthfully on the video that was made.

    Rowe said that before the interview began at Schaffel’s home, they talked briefly about her family and he reported on her children’s progress.

    She said Schaffel told her that “they were fine, that Michael was going to be OK, how big the children had gotten and how beautiful they were and how strongheaded Paris was, like me.”

    She said the videotaped interview lasted nine hours and that she recently saw a two-hour version of it which was shown to her by prosecutors.

    She said she found it “very boring and dull” and didn’t really pay attention while she was watching it.

    “All I knew is whatever what is being put out about Michael was hurtful to Michael and the children,” she said.

    Rowe said she told Mr. Jackson’s associates that before she could take part in the video she needed a release from a confidentiality agreement.

    “The confidentiality agreement said I could not speak with the press, public, anyone, regarding Michael or the children or our lives together,” she said.

    In his opening statement on February 28, 2005, chief prosecutor Tom Sneddon told the jury, “Debbie Rowe will tell you her interview also was completely scripted. They scripted that interview just like they scripted the (accuser’s mother’s) interview.”

    But the prosecution’s line of attack has faltered in the face of Rowe’s reversed testimony – and she remained adamant that neither Mr. Jackson or his aides tried to coerce her into giving scripted answers.

    Rowe was expected back on the stand Thursday for more questioning.

    Earlier in the day, Mr. Jackson’s attorneys asked for a mistrial but were turned down by Judge Rodney S. Melville during a controversy involving testimony about the television documentary.

    Former Mr. Jackson videographer Hamid Moslehi testified that during taping of the documentary he used his own camera to record the scenes as a backup for Mr. Jackson. He said the ultimate documentary was edited in a way that “Mr. Jackson sounded different than if they had continued another two or three seconds of that statement.”

    Michael JacksonMoslehi said the accuser, his brother and sister were at his house for two or three hours before the taping began and he did not see them rehearsing. He said that the mother was there for about an hour before the taping and that he did not see her reading, rehearsing or being coached.

    He also said that the mother confided in him at times but that she never told him that she was being falsely imprisoned, that she was receiving death threats, that Mr. Jackson had given her children alcohol or that the singer improperly touched her son. He said she also never asked him to call police.

    The judge had earlier barred the defense from showing sections of Moslehi’s tape, so he ordered prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss to cease questioning Moslehi about his tape. But the prosecutor again ventured into that area, drawing another warning.

    The defense finally made a motion for a mistrial, but the judge said he believed he had taken care of the problem by raising his own objection to the testimony.

    Source: AP

  • Kim

    I don’t know what Michael did or didn’t do and hopefully the truth will prevail. My concern is with the parents so continue to allow their children unsupervised contact with him when there have been years of speculation. I think this family inparticular sacrified their children for their own greed. The parents should also be put on trial for their stupidity in not protecting their child. If Michael is guilty they also are guilty.

  • james mclafferty

    I agree kim:-)

  • nick

    It certainly sounds like Mihos knows what he is speaking about, as opposed to all the Jackson bashers !

  • Eric Olsen

    I agree Kim

  • james mclafferty

    What do the mj haters think of this then?

    In YOUR Opinion: John Karrys Writes “Michael’s Promethean Revenge”

    Created: Tuesday, 03 May 2005

    By John Karrys

    The show must go on. The incredible shrinking timelines are dancing with the parade of testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses. The brilliant and talented Tom Sneddon has accomplished the unthinkable in such a short period of time. This maestro of justice and his prodigious team of protégés have masterfully demonstrated that the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson are completely false. Those other charges are just smokescreens. If you are among the envious, the cynical or the parasitical or if you have decided to follow the herd and publicly judge and profit like a parasite rather than a producer, I must say that that karma is coming to a nightmare near you. Parasitic vultures have masticated Michael’s reputation in the hope that he would one day break. You, the parasite, were wrong about Michael and the Jackson family.

    With the help of the State and establishment Media, these socio-pathic storm troopers have failed to break Michael’s spirit or tarnish the Jackson name indefinitely. They have tried with every advantage available and, no matter how hard they try, they won’t get that satisfaction that only an envious parasite is constantly hungry for.

    Let us not forget, this is a family from Gary, Indiana. That’s an extremely tough town, one of the most dangerous in the nation. It has always been a tough town. One has to be exceptionally tough to fight your way out. Michael’s has undergone phenomenal military-type training, under two disciplinarian perfectionists, his father, Joseph Jackson and Berry Gordy. Visit the Motown Museum, read the history of the training those artists received and when you’re standing in the actual recording studio, imagine the gut wrenching discipline and backbreaking work that was required to produce the songs we now take for granted. Michael has gone through all the rites of passage that a warrior must take to prepare for the Leviathan State scrutiny such as this.

    Tom Sneddon miscalculated on that resilient Jackson faith. In an attempt to aid and abet the District Attorney, in what appears to be a series of crimes, the establishment media have invested and committed a pivotal error in choosing to be a propaganda pusher for the State’s half-truths. Legally, retribution is on the way. In the court of public opinion, revenge will proceed accordingly. All of Sneddon’s cases, as well as certain journalists’ ethical conduct will have to be reviewed.

    Finally, Michael Jackson’s innocence will be heard, seen and experienced. Principled prosecutors across America know this case is dead. Law professors are at a loss for words, as they struggle to explain to their students, as to why this case was even brought to court. Good pundits across America are introspecting as to what made them so quickly believe Tom Sneddon as they revisit in their notes, their cognitive framework as well as the overwhelming number of prosecution witnesses that alarmingly became defence witnesses.

    Michael Jackson is a self-made man who has triumphed through the labyrinth of parasites. After all of this salacious slandering, he is still standing proud with a passion to add more value to the human experience. At this point, after all of these extensive investigations, Michael Jackson is an innocent man whose natural rights and dignity have been raped for twelve tortuous years. The defence that is to follow is Michael’s Promethean revenge.

    Can you feel the anticipation? Some may love it and some will loathe it. It’s all a matter of conscience. Nonetheless, it is this concert of justice that innocent self-made people around the world are ready to receive. Some will dance and some will cry. Americans need to feel that fire of freedom, once again, instead of tolerating the perpetual service.

  • Eric Olsen

    who is John Karrys, and, respectfully, why should I care about his opinion?

  • Mihos

    Eric with all due respect, isn’t it a tad bit too late to get picky about the credentials or credibility of social commentators like John Karrys and Diane Cubic Zirconia?
    I just wish i had the grasp of the English language that he has.

    I’ve read a number of John Karry’s editorials over the past few months and generally find them provocative and well worth the read.
    Where I tend to play the devil’s advocate throwing out incredible and stupid to believe theories in an effort to convince skeptics of the intractible nature of tabloid journalism, Karry’s is unfazed in his commentary always adhering to the simple truth without being too cute about it.

    I hope that anyone bored enoughh to read any of my reflections on the nature of presuppositional bias in reporting, will take John Karrys’s writing for what it is and that is objective analysis in support of Jackson but with out Faux styled spin. It may be reactionary but it is principled.
    Still hoping some one anyone will answer the questions about who leaked the grand jury testimony to Court TV and who is ultimately responsible for its dissemination.

  • Dennis E Strausser Jr

    Interesting question to ask here.
    Did a single person, or child go through a lie detector test?
    If not, no one could really tell who’s lying, and who’s telling the truth…

  • pauline

    People can believe what they want to believe, but There was indeed a conspiracy against michael jackson. After reading trial transcripts and using common sense, I think it’s quite obvious that nearly EVERY single prosecution witness was not telling the truth, Especially the so called “eye witnesses” who claimed to see a child getting abused and did’nt do a damn thing about until money came knocking on the door

    People like Diane dimond can defend these clowns and make up excuses for them all she wants to, but the truth is, these former employees were all a bunch of disgruntled shysters and oppurtunists, every last one of them. First of all, it is ridiculous as hell that one would file a “wrongful termination” lawsuit against someone who they claim is a “child molester”, but that’s exactly what ralph chacon, adriane mcmanus, and kassim abdool did. If these people really saw these heinous crimes that they alleged, then why the hell would they sue Michael jackson after he fired them? would’nt they be happy to leave? or did they want to continue to work for a man who they claimed to see having sex with young children? absouletly ridicious!

    and another thing is, how is it that all these people were actually seeing all this stuff? Child molesters and pedophiles are very covert people. They usually molest children behind closed doors. In order to believe these prior bad acts “witness” accounts, you would have to believe that michael jackson was a very reckless child molester. A man who molested children out in the open knowing very well that he had a house full of over 60 employees…LMAO

    I honestly can’t believe how noone picked up on any of this during the trial coverage. I guess people like nancy grace were all too busy bashing and trashing jackson to realize that this case was a joke from the very beginning