Maybe It’s Brown Who Needs A Reality Check? – MiniBullet #18

Imagine my interest when someone mentioned a recent article from Stacy Brown, who has parlayed his marginal (at best) connection directly to Michael Jackson into a job at MSNBC as a trial “analyst”.

Brown, touted as a “Jackson family friend” seems to be using whatever position he has to profit from this Jackson connection; be it through co-writing a book with the fired Bob Jones or that cushy “analyst” job with MSNBC.

Both Brown and Jones had to testify in court recently where Jones waffled about what he claims he saw with Jackson in 1993.

Since Jones is writing a book and has to put something salacious in it, it was interesting when he told Tom Mesereau on the stand that he had not approved the accuracy of what was written thus far in a rough draft of the book concerning this all-too-conveniently-remembered “head licking”.

Brown was called by the prosecution to try to impeach Jones’s waffling on the stand.

It was a wishy-washy assertion….or non-assertion….or assertion….or non-assertion…that Bob Jones witnessed “head licking” on a plane with the 1993 accuser.

Now, why the hell Jones wouldn’t have called the police or tried to stop what he claims he didn’t see…did see….didn’t see….is beyond me.

But what can Jones, and co-writer Stacy Brown, say now? Their book seems to be shot to hell after the prosecution yanked them up and put them on the witness stand.  If they both suddenly come up with a bunch of salacious garbage now, people are going to be wondering why they didn’t testify to such claims under oath.

In a ridiculous article <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6308419/>“Jackson needs a reality check”</a>, Brown takes shots at Jackson, his fans, and asserts that it’s a “ridiculous notion” that the media is biased against Jackson when covering this trial.  Whatever nonsense he has to work out between himself and the Jackson family is up to him. Comments about what is ‘reality’ to Jackson is utterly absurd. But I just have to speak about the media coverage of this trial.

Being someone who has archived comments about the trial, I’ve damn near heard it all. But to claim that there’s not an anti-Jackson slant on this coverage is nonsensical. Even some prosecution pundits who appear to hate Jackson’s guts have complained, in some way or another, about media coverage.  So what the hell is Brown talking about?

He claims “most of the trial coverage is being reported not by actual journalists, but mostly by defense attorneys hired as analysts.” Yeah right.

In reality, the majority of the hosts, with platforms for which to bring on whoever they want, are the ones dominating the coverage of this trial thus far.

There’s the hysterical Court TV bunch: Nancy Grace, Catherine Crier, Lisa Bloom, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Vinnie Politan, Diane Dimond, etc.  All of them with an absolutely obvious slant in favor of the prosecution.  They’re singled out because, for the most part throughout the day, their excuses for this shoddy “case” dominate the airwaves on the coverage of Jackson.

Also a part of this coverage is an endless string of former state prosecutors, former federal prosecutors, former DA’s, former judges and ludicrous defense attorneys.

Everyone from Jeanine Pirro and Wendy Murphy to Susan Filan and the obnoxious Bill Fallon have ALL been given a platform for which to express their anti-Jackson opinion repeatedly. And don’t forget Paula Canny, Lisa Pinto, Marsha Clark, Bill Fazio, Donald Schweitzer, Arthur Aidala… I could go on and on.

Even defense attorneys Bernie Grimm, Jeff Figer, and Craig Mitnik have had less than glowing things to say about Jackson.  If I hear Figer–a scary looking man himself–in his ridiculously juvenile way, insult Jackson’s physical appearance one more time, I may pull an ‘Elvis Presley’ and shoot my television.

That list of defense attorneys include some whose “advice” for Jackson has him admitting he was guilty in 1993.  What the $#^@! was Michael Cardoza thinking with that comment anyway? But is that the “spin” to which Brown was referring by defense attorneys covering this trial??

And again don’t get me started with hosts like accused sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly (fox),  Rita “NOI” Cosby (fox), Nancy Grace (court tv), Sean Hannity (fox), John Gibson (fox), Bloom (court tv), Guilfoyle (court tv), etc., etc., etc.

All of them, in some way at some time or another, have desperately tried to explain away why proven liars, shysters, thieves and crooks must all be telling the truth.  Even alleged crooks that were sued into bankruptcy previously by Jackson and were found to have acted with malice against him, all the while selling stories to tabloids! Oh yeah….that’s positive to Jackson…..not.

Even when unbelievably devastating testimony and information is revealed about the accusing family and 3rd party “witnesses”, there’s Diane Dimond spinning into the stratosphere. There’s Nancy Grace crying for the “victim”.  There’s the recently obnoxious Kimberly Guilfoyle-<strike>Newsome</strike> and her new best friend, Ray Chandler.

For example, Mesereau brought out in court under cross examination that the mother, Janet Arvizo, admitted to lying under oath in a deposition about who caused her bruises during that lawsuit against JC Penney. That lawsuit netted her a $152,000 settlement.

She claimed security guards beat her and sued. She claimed those bruises were caused by those guards.  Only now she’s claiming those bruises – apparently cited as “evidence” against JC Penny – were caused by her then husband, David Arvizo. Oops.

But there was Dimond, on the air and making excuses : oh she only lied under oath to get money because she was embarrassed….or scared…or whatever. Is this the pro-Jackson “spin” to which Brown was referring? Please.

Ah, I see.  She’s only supposed to tell the truth under oath when she’s not embarrassed or scared. And therefore, she must be telling the truth about Jackson, huh?  Please.

That’s not how it works. There aren’t supposed to be any exceptions to telling the truth under oath.  So I guess when a defense attorney points this out, he’s just putting a pro-Jackson “spin” on it, huh? Please!

J. Arivizo pled the 5th Amendment so as to not incriminate herself concerning welfare fraud and perjury.  There is no cleaning that up…..unless you’re Lis Wehl (fox) or Susan Filan (everywhere) , or the incredulous Lisa Pinto (court tv) who have used the ludicrous excuse that none of this matters and that “pedophiles” go after dysfunctional families.

Using that reasoning, I guess all of the thousands of children abused by pedophilic priests, parents, uncles, teachers, doctors, lawyers, actors, neighbors, scout masters, store owners,  etc. ALL came from “dysfunctional families”. Huh? That’s ridiculous. And it’s just as ridiculous to use this family’s dysfunction as an excuse of why Jackson “has to be guilty” according to some media pundits.

How in the world do I know all of this?  I know because I’ve been covering this “case” since a giddy Diane Dimond cut into Court TV with breaking news, showing the cops going into the gates of Neverland the morning of Nov 18 2003. Part of knowing what’s going on is paying attention to what other people are reporting.

And as if all this wasn’t bad enough, information about an email from Geraldo Rivera (fox) to thejusticesystem.net is circulating basically confirming what many fans suspected: he was basically shut down from covering this “case”.  Why?  He claimed that it was because he and his network agreed that he couldn’t cover the story objectively. I kid you not.  

Some speculate that it may be because he wasn’t proclaiming Jackson’s guilt like so many of his colleagues. I assume that one can only be “impartial” and “objective” when they’re talking about how guilty they think Jackson is. Is that the pro-Jackson “spin” to which Brown was referring in his article? Please.

Continuing with that silly article from Brown, he seems to be angry that Jackson’s fans have a mind of their own and can analyze news, info, and transcripts for themselves.

He criticizes analysts who write up their own commentary and analysis of recent events – much like MJEOL and a number of other sites. In my opinion, the criticism is because a lot of people simply refuse to fall for bull$hit that has permeated the airwaves.

Our unwillingness to ignore fraud, malice, vindictive behavior, questionable decisions by the judge, asinine witness testimony and wannabe “analysts” who have parlayed their connections into a paycheck from a network, may be very scary to him.

Already a number of people have written in with very harsh words for the “leech” Mr. Brown, who they think he “needs to sit his ass down somewhere with that mess.” And that was one of the clean emails.

I support freedom of speech, so I don’t agree completely.  I think Brown should express his opinion so that there are no illusions about exactly the kind of person he is and how he really feels.  

It’s not the “snakes” who reveal themselves who Jackson has to worry about.  It’s the undercover “snakes”, like Bashir, that Jackson has to look out for.  There’s really nothing like a good crisis to let one know who they can and can’t trust.

More criticism from Brown concerns Jackson fans who show up outside the courthouse and express their opinion about his innocence.  He whines “fans also show up outside the court with signs and banners that ridicule the accuser and his family, showing little regard [to] the boy…”.  

Well how much regard should they show someone whom they think are liars and crooks?  It’s foolish to even suggest that they should be worried about a family who some of them feel is totally perpetrating a fraud against both Jackson and the legal system.

Many of them are tired of turning the other cheek, so to speak, because there has been no reciprocity for Jackson.  

As if they should kiss the asses of those who have proclaimed Neverland to be a den of booze and child sex.  Should they give a rat’s tail about the feelings of this family?  I don’t think so…but hey that’s just my opinion.

Brown whines about the accuser suffering for the remainder of his life.  Well, what about Jackson’s children?  Nobody seems to care at all about them outside of wanting to snatch them from Jackson and throw them directly into danger by placing them in the system.  

Where’s the thought of Jackson’s kids when Jay Leno makes a mockery of Jackson and this trial on almost a nightly basis?  Does the audience think about those 3 kids before laughing at the joke? Hell no.

Where’s the “let’s think about the children” when some hack reporter or ignorant PhD – neither of whom have ever met Jackson — calls him a freak who doesn’t deserve to be treated like a human being? Do these prosecution analysts pause to think about Jackson’s kids when trying their damnedest to link Jackson to pedophilia? Hell no.

Where’s the hesitation from these hosts and analysts appearing on TV all but directly calling him a pedophile? Some who have blatantly done so previously? Some who have been accused of deviant sexual behavior of their own?  I guess that’s not important, huh?

And if I hear one more person purposely misstating Jackson’s words in that hatchet-job of a “documentary” about sleeping arrangements!  For the record, Jackson never said he likes to sleep in the same bed with young boys. That statement never came out of this mouth.

In subsequent reporting on the “documentary”, it was reported in that way for the specific purpose of making it salacious, and inaccurate; in the same way Brown used it in his article.

The fact is that Jackson has said he sleeps on the floor, a fact actually confirmed by Gavin Arvizo on that Bashir “documentary”. But Brown’s ridiculousness aside,  it does raises an interesting question though.

The public has already learned that Jackson’s “bedroom” is very large and two-stories high with 3 bathrooms. The public also learned that Jackson’s bed is on the 2nd floor.  

So, was Jackson sleeping on the floor of the 1st floor, while the accuser and anyone else were sleeping in his bed on the 2nd floor of his “bedroom”?  Who knows at this moment.  But logistics aside, there is no sleeping in the same bed with any kid.

To piggyback on that notion, a possible untold story which may come out at trial is the presence of…*gasp!* GIRLS at Neverland in Jackson’s bedroom.  Even in that clip the media loves to play where Jackson is talking about Mac Culkin and his brother, he also mentions their sister *gasp!* being there with them as well.

In a very old interview with Brett Barnes in 1993 – one of the prosecution-created “victims” who has repeatedly denied abuse – the public learned the sister was also there when Barnes was at Neverland with Jackson, says the family.  I’ll be keeping a look-out for a full and more complete story of Neverland once the defense presents its case.

We should all also be keeping an eye out for “wanna be, book selling, self-promoting, cry baby”, hack analysts whining about someone else’s ‘reality’ when the reality is that their “advice” may really be hiding an agenda to protect future smear-book profits.  

Quite a few comments that have come in suggest that Brown reeks of “opportunistic”, “vengeful spite”.  A “Jackson family friend?” With “friends” like these…well you know the rest.

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *