Today on Blogcritics
Home » Michael Jackson Trial: Media Perceptions

Michael Jackson Trial: Media Perceptions

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

In the course of ongoing reporting on the Michael Jackson child molestation trial, I have received a steady stream of comments from well-intentioned Jackson supporters who have stated as a matter of fact that the media is highlighting the salacious allegations against the performer as opposed to his defense rebuttals, and skewing coverage of the trial against Jackson in general because “sensationalism sells” and the perception that he is a “freak.”

Due to a broadcast media ban on the trial, which I am coming to see more and more as a disservice to ALL involved, only the handful of people actually in the courtroom each day know what really happens in terms of minute to minute ebb and flow, nuance, tone, mood, individual reactions to testimony, and the vocal inflection of that testimony. In other words, all we really know about the trial is what the media tells us, rather than having the ability to follow along and make decisions for ourselves had the trial been televised.

And based upon the headlines and reports on, for example, yesterday’s testimony by Macaulay Culkin, one might come to a conclusion opposite to that of my many Jackson-defending commenters about the media’s bias in this case.

Note the following headlines:

    Actor Macaulay Culkin comes to Jackson’s defense - Reuters
    Actor Macaulay Culkin denies being molested by Jackson – AFP
    Culkin comes to Jackson’s defense – SantaMariaTimes
    Culkin: ‘He never molested me’ - The Santa Barbara News-Press
    Mac Backs Michael – E! Online
    ‘We are unique people. He understood me': Culkin defends Jackson – The Independent (UK)
    Culkin Describes Bond With Jackson – CBS News
    Culkin calls charges against Jackson ‘ridiculous’ – San Diego Union-Tribune
    Jackson abuse rejected by Culkin – BBC

Etc, etc: you get the picture – and all these stories reflect the emphasis of the headlines.

The only one I could find that didn’t echo the theme of Culkin defending Jackson and denying molestation was this:

    Child star shared bed with Jackson – The Guardian (UK)

which is a very different emphasis isn’t it? If the press was so biased against Jackson, why did they almost universally select the Jackson supporting theme?

Now consider this commentary from Steve Corbett, who is in the courtroom every day for the hometown Santa Maria Times. Virtually none of what struck Corbett about Culkin’s testimony came out in other media coverage:

    Rumpled in an open-neck dress shirt and dark suit, Culkin raised his hand and took a seat. Pro that he is, Culkin delivered his lines with familiarity, flair and import. Adding a little dash and a hint of swagger, Culkin must have made Jackson’s heart flutter.

    A truly famous friend had finally taken the stand.

    In truth, though, since a witness has testified that Jackson sexually molested Culkin, the young actor was testifying to save his own reputation as much as Jackson’s.

    “Ridiculous,” Culkin said of the accusation.

    “I’ve never seen him do anything improper with anybody,” he said.

    As solid as Culkin’s testimony might have been, Jackson’s future largely depends on what behavior jurors consider to be improper. Adult men who sleep with a stable of little boys still causes concern in most quarters.

    Culkin’s appearance provided Santa Barbara County Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen with yet another chance to take jurors on yet another tour deep into the beddy-bye darkness that has dominated Jackson’s adult obsession with little boys.

That information is familiar from the other reports, even if the slant is different, but I haven’t seen the following Culkin testimony reported anywhere else at all:

    “He kind of called me out of the blue one time,” Culkin testified, recalling how Jackson phoned when Culkin was 9 or 10 years old.

    With Culkin’s sudden fame, Jackson commiserated and told him that he could understand the child’s dilemma. After all, Jackson had suffered the same loss of privacy when he was a little boy.

    Jackson suggested that maybe they could get together.

    Culkin detailed a trip he took to Bermuda with a friend and the friend’s family.

    Jackson invited himself along, Culkin said. Or maybe Culkin invited Jackson. Confused, cagey or both, Culkin stammered as he tried to explain.

    “Which was it?” Zonen demanded.

    Culkin said he didn’t remember.

    “He gave you a watch?” Zonen said, already knowing the answer.

    “He gave a Rolex to an 11-year-old child?” Zonen said.

    “It wasn’t all that crazy to me,” Culkin said, adding that his father had a Rolex.

    Zonen asked Culkin if the family that hosted him on the trip felt excluded because he was spending so much time with Jackson. Zonen asked if the family felt that Jackson was dominating Culkin’s time.

    Culkin said he couldn’t recall because the trip happened a long time ago.

    Zonen wanted to know if Culkin’s friend’s mother forbid Culkin from going places alone with Jackson.

    “I don’t remember those kind of details,” Culkin said.

    …Then Culkin took jurors to bed with him and the defendant.

    And the image of yet another little boy alone in bed with a grown Jackson became part of the mounting circumstantial evidence against the solicitous entertainer.

    But nothing sexual happened in bed, Culkin said.

    Nothing sexual ever happened.

    Culkin described a close relationship.

    “We had the understanding of one another,” he said.

    “We were close,” he said.

    Like family?

    “Yes,” he told Zonen.

I have no way of knowing whether the jury saw the testimony in this light — because I couldn’t watch it for myself — or in the overwhelming majority media light of Culkin simply denying that he was molested and that was that.

But that isn’t that, because Jackson isn’t on trial for molesting Culkin, he is on trial for molesting another boy, and the behavior patterns, the gifts, the attention, the “grooming,” the parade of boys to Jackson’s bed, could be just as important to the case as Culkin’s denials that anything untoward happened.

And you didn’t hear that anywhere else – in which direction is the media biased?

Powered by

About Eric Olsen

  • Lee Williams

    The media has waged a negative media campaign against Michael Jackson for the last fifthteen years. They are oblivious hoping for a conviction. But it is not just Michael Jackson the media seeks to vilify, how about Florence Joyner, Mike Tyson, James Brown, Marion Jones, Bobby Brown, Kobe Bryant, Diana Ross, Whitney Houston, Bobby Bonds just to name a few.

  • http://worsethanmybite.blogspot.com/ Nicolette Rivers

    Crazy celebs are entertaining. That is different than criminal behavior. When Michael Jackson was just eccentric, odd, strange, etc…America still loved him. It was his habit of choosing bedmates who were just getting in their adult teeth which caused a problem.

  • dee

    When someone famous screws up, of course the vilify them. People with dreary lives want that kind of stuff. I do not know for sure if Michael is guilty or not of what he is charged. I do know most men his age do not hang out with little kids and they sleep with grown ups, not kids. If he looks like a duck and walks like a duck, most people are going to call it a duck.

    I worked with abused kids and it is not uncommon for someone to select certain kids they will molest and leave the others alone.

  • mjs 1st

    The comment by Lee Williams is very, very true. Even during the Prosecution’s part of the trial, when things were not going their way, you could pick up a slant in the media coverage. Some commentators could not avoid showing disappointment when it seemed testimony was in the defense’s favor.

    Did anyone see May 11 Inside Edition where Debbie Rowe was visited by a female reporter and was very rudely treated and threatened?

  • shorty

    Nobody ever talks about the nice things
    Mr. Jackson does – He very often invited
    all the school kids to his ranch, provided them with lunch (free) and rides in the park. He must be a kind
    person to do that. It does not mean he
    does not have his faults, but he is not a criminal, weird yes, but so are 100th
    of priest that molest boys, are they
    being dragged to the courtroom?
    This whole trial is a waste of money,
    because it is not clear who is the
    worst party in this case.

  • Sandre Mann

    It is obvious that the individual who wrote this story have not watched Nancy Grace on CNN or the pundits on MSNBC and Fox News. With these people MJ was tried and convicted before he went to court. For MJ it is not innocent until proven guilty, it is guilty until proven innocent. Even if the jury finds MJ innocent he will always be guilty. Such is the story of men of color in this country.

  • http://worsethanmybite.blogspot.com/ Nicolette Rivers

    Right, it’s men of color, because Nancy Grace was never rough on Scott Peterson!

    Michael Jackson is at this moment a-man?-of-no-color — when he WAS a man of color people bought Thriller in droves. He was a hero to many.

    Now would you like a list of all the men of color who don’t sleep with young boys who America likes just fine?

  • mlq

    Yes, that is a good example of the media not against MJ, but this is only a small sample from a long history. Also, I think the media is saturated with MJ to the point where sometimes, they simply just report the days news. There is something new every day and that makes it hard for there to seem like there is mostly negative news write ups. If you would go back before the trial, it was mostly making fun. My point may be simple, but that’s what is going on. And don’t forget “the spoof”, it has plenty of things to make fun of.

  • mlq

    Oops. I didn’t notice this was satire as put in the headlines.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    It’s not satire. Did you come here via Google News?

  • David

    If he is innocent, then what people drag him though must hurt him a lot. The doubt will always be there. It is horrible if he is innocent.

  • http://worsethanmybite.blogspot.com/ Nicolette Rivers

    And if he is guilty, then what he out those kid through must have hurt them a lot. The trauma will always be there. It is horrible if he is guilty.

  • Anneka

    I would love to think that Michael Jackson is innocent and in my heart i believe he is, I think that people are money grabbing and because Michael is the way he is they pick on him. I wont believe he is guilty until it is fully proven and i hope that it is proven that he is innocent. Good luck to you Michael. x

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks for all your input – this is most assuredly NOT satire. For some reason Google news decided all of our stories should be labeled “satire” about 36 hours ago and we are trying to get them to remove that designation

  • james mclafferty

    ERIC,:-)I heard the culkin testimony in your post elsewhere on sky news here in england so it’s common knowledge in england.We seem to be getting more information than you.Sky news have got an in court reporter.

  • james mclafferty

    ERIC,the phone call bit to mcauley and the rolex watch information was on the sky news reconstruction thingy here in england do you not get sky news in america?,we get cnn,bloomberg,nbc,and abc.

  • Eric Olsen

    for this story I concentrated on the print media – we get the “reconstruction” on E! but I don’t watch that

  • james mclafferty

    Oh right,i’ll let you off then mate(smile),very impressed to hear your interview peice you’ve got quite a coloured cv ,very impressive,where’s the playboy bunny number i requested?,lol(only joking).:-)

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks James, the Playboy stuff was quite a while ago and not all that impressive anyway – maybe I should be watching the reconstruction to get all the testimony!

  • james mclafferty

    ERIC,I suggested jarboy listen to your interview as he thought i was slandering you, i didn’t notice the interview side bar ,what additional media are you thinking of adding in the future?

  • james mclafferty

    Eric,And on a side issue aren’t you glad they aren’t going to be building that super skyscraper to replace the twin towers.It would of just been a bigger target.Anyway the defences side of this case has been interesting,dis you read my post about gavin’s sister allegedly having a sexual relationship with a jackson employee when she was 16?.That opens a whole new can of worms don’t you reckon?.

  • jarboy

    i believe they are going to build the tower, just modify the base to meet security concerns of the police. i live in manhattan and we need the tower. there is a hole in the skyline that needs to be filled to make up for the hole in our hearts.

  • james mclafferty

    Yes jarboy the footage of the twin towers colapsing(sp?),was horrific i felt for all of you.Maybe they should build a large monument instead mate,or a building that isn’t quite so tall,i remember seeing the people falling out of the windows it didn’t seem real.At least we have saddam hussien that’s one less dictator in the world with any luck bin laden will die of a fatal painful disease before we get to him.

  • jarboy

    i didn’t know mj was a man of color. isn’t he a white woman?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    White is a color too, jarboy.

  • jarboy

    white is the absence of color, Vic. And when they phrase “person of color” is used, white is definitely excluded.

  • jarboy

    thanks, James

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Paging jarboy’s sense of humor! Jarboy’s sense of humor to the O.R., stat!

    Actually, white is not the absence of color. Transparent is the absence of color. If you can still see the screen when a man stands in front of your television, you will have met your first man who is not a man of color.

    We are all people of color.

    Yes, I’m familiar with the contemporary usage which applies that phrase only to the dark brown humans, and excludes the light brown ones. (None of us are even really white you know. The lightest of us are pinkish light brown, even the albinos.)

    However, I do not accept that as a defensibly permanent usage. I’m on a long term campaign to promote the truth, which is that we are all varying degrees of brown, and we are all of African descent.

  • jarboy

    “Plenty” of crap.
    btw, color is about light reflection. A white surface has no a pigment, and since it has no pigment, it reflects the whole spectrum of light. A black surface contains all pigments, therefore absorbs the whole spectrum of light. Transparency has nothing yo do with it, light simply passes through.

  • Eric Olsen

    very true VP, we are all of African descent. The entire racial angle as applied to Michael Jackson is simply nonsense and irrelevant. He is not being prosecuted as a representative of “The Black Man In America,” and to imply so is disingenuous demagoguery. Michael Jackson is Michael Jackson and no other comparisons apply.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    There is more than one way to think about color, jarboy.

    You yourself admit that the white surface reflects the whole spectrum of light. How can it do this if there is no color in the white light it reflects? What we call white light actually contains all the colors of light. Seen from this perspective, white is indeed a color.

    Of course, humans are not actually available in this color. Humans also are not available in the color we call black. Humans range from pinkish light brown to blackish dark brown.

    And as Eric reminds us, Michael Jackson is a horse of another color, of course, of course.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Give it up, Victor – no one can talk to the horse, of course. Or jarboy…

  • ian symonds

    If MJ is prooven guilty, which I believe he is, then he will surely get what he deserves, and not necessarily 20 years. Just think of the security measures which will cost the U.S. taxpayer???? Dosn’t matter, he may last a year or so. He likes to play with litttle penises, but I can guarantee some black dude will have 6 inches up his asshole before he can even think of Thriller #2

    Regards from Mexico City

  • ian symonds

    If MJ is prooven guilty, which I believe he is, then he will surely get what he deserves, and not necessarily 20 years. Just think of the security measures which will cost the U.S. taxpayer???? Dosn’t matter, he may last a year or so. He likes to play with litttle penises, but I can guarantee some black dude will have 6 inches up his asshole before he can even think of Thriller #2

    Regards from Mexico City

  • oups

    Your own comment would deserve to be studied as an exemple of hidden bias. You purport to study media perceptions and it just happens that you choose to do so a day where even Diane Dimond couldn’t find anything negative to say against the defense. So of course, most media were overwhemingly positive and you act as if it entitles you to conclude that the bias is pro defense. If you had been seriously interested in studying media bias you would have chosen a day whose result was less obvious.

    And you end your comment by a column by Corbett, trying to hint that he must know more than anybody else because he is there everyday. Guess what, Linda Deutsch, Dawn Hobbs and many others are there everyday too, and yet their reports differed greatly from Corbett’s whose outragous pro-prosecution bias is not even denied by the British channel on which he comments.

  • 4real

    hello
    it me 4real ,i just wanna know if what they are saying about jackson is true,

  • HW Saxton

    4real, I’m not positive but I think that
    just may be why they are having a trial.

  • sandra smallson

    Eric, leave it to you to quote a non entity like Corbett. A man who started the trial believing MJ was guilty. What objective reporting are you expecting from such a character?! Eric, you are becoming almost as desperate as the prosecutors. What on earth will you do when this is all over?! I can’t for the life of me remember what it is you did before it all started.

  • James Williams

    When it comes to media perception of the Michael Jackson trial I am quite dissapointed. I wonder why it is not okay to simply report news and events instead of attempting to color those events in a certain way.

    Military intelligence commanders don’t care whether their operatives have an opinion on whether we should be in Iraq or not. They simply want the most factual information so they can determine courses of action.

    The media does not report news. It tries to augment the news. Every time I read a headline that reads “Whacko Jacko” I want to scream. I only wanna know what happened, what was said, or done. What has the prosecustion been able to present? What has the defense has been able to present…That’s all I need. I don’t care what the reporter thinks. I’d like to decide if I think someone is lying instead having a writer attempt to lead me down a certain path.

    I find that when I read the news now I always have to try and filter out obvious opinions. I can’t just read one source because I’m finding that if I only read one newpaper article, chances are that it will not include something that another article does include, thereby giving a whole different slant to the story.

    It doesn’t make sense for one paper to say Michael said “if you love me you’ll let him sleep in my bed” and another to print “if you love me you’ll let him sleep in my bed while I sleep on the floor”. Sure it’s weird either way but the first example has the conclsuion of child molestation practically written all over it. That is the most likely conclusion a reader would come to. While the second example is unusual it does not lead to an immediate conclusion. So when someone else who reads the second example says he’s innocent or that it’s even possible that he’s innocent, that someone is labeled crazy by anyone who has read the first example only.

    The media pits good people against good people and I wonder if anybody realizes how these little screwed up things in our society can turn into big things and screw everything else up….just like in our personal lives.

    I’m African American and I don’t believe that absolutely everyone who owned a slave was evil to the core. I believe that information was manipulated to allow people to rationalize and accept the inhumane slavery of other human beings. So why do we still allow this level of manipulation to happen?

    It’s okay to have an opinion and state it but it’s not okay to twist the actual facts to a point where a reader has an incorrect basis from which to form a conclusion. It’s just not fair to the subject of the story or to the reader.

    If a reporter says Debbie Rowe testified and said this and that, the news has been properly reported. I can agree or disagree with her testimony. But when a reporter says “Debbie Rowe said this because she is obviously fawning over Jackson”, that goes to far. The reporter doesn’t “know” this. Or the accuser for instance. It’s news that the accuser says that Michael molested him. But it’s not news to say that his testimony is not to be believed because he was mad because Jackson cut off the money. If you wanna report that the accuser and his family have lied under oath before that’s fine too. Maybe I’ll think they’re doing it again and maybe I won’t, but I’d like to hear it like the jury hears it as much as possible so I can put myself in their shoes. They are the only ones who matter anyway. So why not give the news reading public that opportunity? The only thing the news media is doing is causing division. it’s not fostering informed debate. You can’t have an effective debate if one or both sides are arguing about incomplete or tainted information. Yes I know politicians do it all the time. But in the end it only leads to unecessary dissappointment.

    In this case, regardless of the outcome, there will be many people dissappointed and they will point the finger at our justice system and say it failed. But if the media would just report what happens and let us experince it more like the way the jury experiences it I think our blogging would be better and I’m sure what the average person thinks would be a whole lot closer to what the jury thinks.

    Since I’m posting let me also say this: We should really try to comment on what we think the jury is seeing not what we ourselves are deciding. We get mad and name call each other because we disagree on guilt or innocence but the reality is that only the jurors can decide. So the one thing we can truly debate is what we think they perceived. We might as well keep it real and remember that the jurors are going to stick each testimony of guilt evidence against an opposite testimony of innocence evidence and then decide which one has more weight. There is no point in just standing on some opinion just becuase it is ours and we wanna be right. If you wanna know what a juror is thinking then you need to make sure you have as many of the trial facts as you can. If you think Michael is innocent already and you’re not paying attention to things that lead to “guilty” then you are not seeing what a juror sees. Same applies if you think he’s guilty and not looking at things that point to innocence. Jurors will have to look at everything and weigh it all. There are witnesses who claim to have seen molestation and you have children who’ve grown up and said it never happened. You have many allegations and people say that where there is smoke there is fire. But there will certainly be a juror who points out that all the smoke is generated by a tight circle of people who are linked by the possible financial gain of a guilty verdict, so the jury will have to ask itself, is all this smoke coming from a real fire or a really good smoke machine. They can’t take one piece of evidence and disregard everything else like we can. They have a life hanging in the balance and they have been asked to decide what the truth is. We have the luxury of deciding what the truth is and then arguing from that point of view. We should be having dialoge about “all” the trial evidence so we can talk about what holds water and what doesn’t. That’s what the jury is going to do. Michael could go to jail an innocent man or he could go free and be as guilty as sin. No one will ever really know for sure – barring an admission of guilt from Michael or a retraction by his accuser. So there is no need to fight over opinions. We can’t change each other’s minds anyway. But a better debate is to discuss the facts and try to get them accurate. At some point those facts will begin to add up and take shape. That is closer to the shape the jury is going to see when all is said and done.
    -James

  • jarboy

    James, you are just supposed to post a response. If you need to write that much, get your own damn blog, dude.

  • jarboy

    Are you the same DrPat who was one of the original fake contestants on Joe Blow? If so, wouldn’t that make you a fake commenter here?

  • mihos

    well written James. Its the first example of an objective post related to the original post. From our data we can reveal that Eric has lost more credibility in his choice of establishment quotes and his sniper minded comments. On the surface an attempt to be fair minded and bring intellegent diaogue to the fore.
    Under that we have a cabal of superior presuppositionists.
    America the Beautiful

  • Eric Olsen

    great line James W:

    “is all this smoke coming from a real fire or a really good smoke machine?”

  • James Williams

    Thanks. Sorry it was so long. I read this board every day at work and thought I’d get into the conversation for once. Never posted to anything before that. Everyone has such interesting points of view. I guess I’ve become a fan of blogging now!

  • sandra smallson

    Eric, why have you not posted a topic on what Mj’s cousins have said about the arvizo boys in the last couple of days? Why have you not posted on what Vivanco or whatever he is called had to say?

    If it was salacious details about MJ touching boys and so on, you would have topics all over the place. Now, this happens and not a word from you on the matter. What? “You no like what the people say?:)” Or you don’t believe them because they are MJ’s cousins but you believe Star and Gav because they are YOUR cousins and are stand up, God fearing, pre-pubescent boys who had never heard the word sex or seen a porn mag, a naked woman or a bottle of wine before they got to NeverLand:) Your Bias is now way out of the sand and is as obvious as an elephant slam bang in Times square.

    If you have posted on it and it’s invisible, my apologies.

  • James Williams

    There is a definate trend when it comes to reporting good news versus bad news. We have been reminded that the media is not just a machine. It is made of human beings. Most of us who went through grammer school were more likely to go running to join a crowd of people watching a schoolyard fight than to show up to an awards ceremony (unless we’re getting an award). Also the media seems to relish in looking serious an important. Reporting things that are wonderful means a reporter has to smile. It’s as if they think a jovial story means that the reader/viewer can take it or leave it while a really horrible story means that we will stand at attention. Unfortunately they tend to be right about this.

  • james mclaffery

    Judge in Jacksons trial refuses to allow Larry King to testify

    BY MICHELLE CARUSO

    New York Daily News
    Visit the Daily News online at http://www.nydailynews.com
    SANTA MARIA, Calif. – (KRT) – The judge in Michael Jackson’s trial on Thursday barred TV talk show host Larry King’s testimony that the mother of the boy who claims Jackson molested him was “in it for the money.”
    With jurors out of earshot, King testified that attorney Larry Feldman, who at one time represented the accuser and his family, last year told him the boy’s mother was a “wacko” and “that she was just in it for the money.”
    But Judge Rodney Melville ruled that King’s “hearsay” testimony was inadmissible – and didn’t contradict Feldman’s earlier trial testimony for the prosecution.
    Minutes after King was dismissed, the defense got a lift from the girlfriend of “Rush Hour” star Chris Tucker, who blew holes in the claim that the accuser and his family were held hostage at Neverland.
    Azja Pryor, who was in regular contact with the family during the alleged false imprisonment in early 2003, said the mom “never” complained of being held captive and was “happy … excited” to make a video about her son’s “beautiful friendship” with Jackson.
    Still, it was King’s appearance that served up the day’s real drama.
    King said that Feldman, who helped negotiate a $20 million-plus settlement for Jackson’s 1993 accuser and his family, told him the ’93 claim was “a definite good case” but “he didn’t want to represent” the current family.
    Jackson, 46, and his family members, including his mother and brother Randy, looked stunned when the judge hastily nixed such King’s testimony with the simple words, “I’m not going to allow it.”
    Jackson’s defense lawyers wanted jurors to hear King’s story to discredit Feldman, who denied he ever told King or anyone else that the current family was after money.
    Feldman is a central figure in the current case against Jackson because he took the accuser and his family to see psychologist Stan Katz, who then reported suspected sexual abuse to authorities in June 2003, triggering the criminal probe and charges against Jackson.
    King couldn’t recall exactly when last year the meeting at Nate and Al’s Deli took place, but said Feldman was looking to be cast as a regular panelist on his show for the Jackson trial.
    During his earlier testimony, Feldman denied he currently is representing the accuser’s family, but records presented by the defense show his firm has done legal work for them this year.
    After King left and Pryor took the stand, she cried as she described her love for the accuser and his siblings, and said their mother praised Jackson and never complained he had done anything bad to her or her children.
    Tucker, who is the father of Pryor’s son, Destin, met the accuser and his family at a Hollywood comedy club that hosted fund-raisers for the boy when he was diagnosed with cancer in 2000.
    Tucker is expected to testify next week.

    © 2005, New York Daily News.

  • Eric Olsen

    damn, this is boring week in the trial

  • beste

    michael ur my biggest star love you loadz ill be supporting you throughout the time you live and when your in heaven. remember youve alwayz got ur fans behind you supporting you love you loadz lots of hugs+kisses beste

  • Shawn

    I partly blame racist media for having a negative effect on his health. Some people can’t let other live in peace. But thanks to karma everyone will get their day.

  • goldie

    i am so tired of the Video being aired enough already its fine the rason why but who wants to hear it and see it over and over;probably everytime its played royalties are paid

%d bloggers like this: