APRIL 27 2005 (7:00 PM) — A giddy Michael Jackson left the courthouse today after a devastating day of testimony for the prosecution in the Jackson trial. The media sure had their figurative bubbles busted with a pair of witnesses called by the prosecution today. First, under cross-examination Jackson’s former videographer Hamid Moslehi testified that he never saw a script and that he’d never seen the Arvizo’s being scripted. He is the one that shot the footage of both the family’s interview and Debbie Rowe’s interview. He’s also yet another witness called by the prosecution who has a money stake in this situation in some form. He is currently suing Jackson for over a million dollars. Second, Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe — who identified herself as “Deborah Rowe-Jackson”, according to Fox’s Anita Vogel — testified that there was no quid pro quo per se for her saying good things about Jackson for the Fox rebuttal special “Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See”. What’s worse for the prosecution is that she refuted the prosecution’s contention that she was scripted. She says that she was NOT scripted. In other words, there was no script. She has been initially called to try to buttress Janet Arvizo’s testimony. It didn’t work. According to the Associated Press (AP), a strong-willed Rowe was not going to be painted as a victim by anyone; including the prosecution:
“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.” (see Rowe Not Scripted, Not Bribed by Jackson to be in Rebuttal vid )
The following is a snippet of what the prosecution promised the jury that Rowe would say:
“Debbie Rowe will testify to some interesting evidence in this case. Shes going to tell you that her interview was also scripted, only a little bit different from the Arvizos, because they took her upstairs and did a complete rehearsal before they ever brought her down to be interviewed. And when shes doing the interview, when they didnt like her answers, they would stop the tape and they would tell her how to answer that. They scripted that interview, just like they scripted the Arvizo interview.”
Some observers have openly wondered if they had ever actually talked to Rowe before calling her to the stand. She had no such story to tell; at least today. Other legal observers hypothesize that the prosecution just wants her on the stand hoping to illicit more details about her and Jackson’s relationship. According an AP report, however, Rowe made it known in no uncertain terms that she did not want to discuss her personal relationship. She also says that she was not pressured to say glowing things about Jackson. From the AP:
She said she was not pressured to say anything specific and that there was “no quid pro quo.” Asked why she would help Jackson, she said, “I promised him I would always be there for Michael and the children.” She did not give any details of her private life with 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. (see Rowe Not Scripted, Not Bribed by Jackson to be in Rebuttal vid)
She said that she’d only spoken to Jackson for about 2 and a half minutes before agreeing to do the interview. Not only that, but she also testified that she is the one who asked if she could see Jackson’s children after she did the video. It was not Jackson who told her that she could see the kids if she said nice things about him. This completely shoots down previous media pundit speculation that it was Jackson who bribed her with seeing her kids if she gave the interview. From the AP report:
Zonen asked: “What did he ask you to do?” “He asked if I would work with Ronald and Dieter. I asked him if he was OK and the children were OK and if I could see them when things settled down,” she said. “He said yes.” Rowe said her conversation with Jackson lasted perhaps 2½ 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.
Further, reportedly she also said that she didn’t even want to see a list of questions that the interviewer was going to ask ahead of time because she wanted to do a “cold” interview. No matter how pro-prosecution pundits try to spin this away and no matter what she says hence forth, this was totally and absolutely devastating to the prosecution. According to the raving media pundits, she was going to confirm the mother’s testimony and paint Jackson as some big, bad intimidator who has threatened her to be in this video. Not so. She is apparently not finished with direct testimony (questions from the prosecution). The defense will get their chance to question Rowe when the prosecution is through.