Media Pundits Look Foolish After Explosive Rowe Testimony – MJEOL Bullet #261 Now excuses are being made for her not testifying to what prosecutors promised APRIL 29 2005 – In the media, Debbie Rowe has suddenly transformed from devastating nightmare of a witness to the defense, to the “ultimate fan” who didn’t tell the truth because she still loves Jackson. What a difference a few days make! It is astonishingly infuriating to see how some media pundits have turned Rowe into a Jackson-obsessed “ultimate fan” who only testified as she did because she wants to be with Jackson again. Other legal analysts proclaim that the District Attorney must have been “spun” by Rowe. Hey, here are a few ideas: Maybe she said what she said on the stand because it’s the damn truth? How about that analysis? Maybe the DA heard what he WANTED to hear instead of what she actually said? Or worse, maybe the DA wanted to backdoor her into this trial and she didn’t really say what he claimed she said. How is it that the public is admonished by these pro-prosecution pundits to accept what a witness alleging abuse has to say at face value, but we’re suppose to disregard Rowe’s testimony because it contradicts what prosecutors promised? The majority of the media had promised that Rowe’s testimony would be a bombshell. That it would be explosive, and could be “devastating” to Jackson. It was a bombshell, alright….a bombshell for the defense. And since these talking heads can’t deal with that, they have to try to spin it away. Members of various websites and some independent pundits alike tried to warn the media about ridiculous speculation and keep them from counting on testimony that hadn’t yet come into evidence. And, as even some pro-defense pundits didn’t predict, yesterday (April 28) was yet another devastating day for the prosecution. Rowe testified again that she was not scripted in that 2003 rebuttal video. Not only that, but under cross-examination, she totally lambasted some of the people around Jackson as being “opportunistic vultures” who are taking advantage of him for financial gain. She did an interview which was included in the final version of the Fox rebuttal special named “Take Two: The Footage you were Never Meant to See”. The interview with the Arvizos wasn’t included in that final version broadcast on Fox, by the way. She said that she didn’t even want to look at a list of approx. 105 questions that interviewer Ian Drew (yeah that nut from Us Weekly) had prepared because she didn’t want anyone to come back at her and accuse her of making up rehearsed answers. She wanted to keep it a “cold” interview with her answering off the top of her head. She didn’t connect Jackson to any vast conspiracy as some prosecution-reporters claimed either. According to reports, Jackson didn’t call her. Marc Schaffel called her first. Schaffel then called Dieter Weisner, who then tracked down Jackson. Jackson got on the phone for all of 2 ½ minutes, which included among other things Rowe asking if he and the children were okay. He said yes. So, no, Jackson didn’t pick up the phone and call Rowe directly. It wasn’t Jackson who said ‘hey I’ll let you see the kids if you do this rebuttal interview.’ No such thing occurred, unlike what a subsection of hack reporters are trying to sell. Based on reports from Mike Taibbi (msnbc), Savannah Guthrie (court tv), Jim Hammer (fox), and Jennifer London (msnbc), Rowe’s testimony has seriously put the entire “conspiracy” allegation in total peril if not totally killed it. Some observers have not been as diplomatic as that; calling Rowe’s testimony a “disaster of biblical proportions” to the prosecution. Some observers who were in the courtroom say this is not an exaggeration. Rowe talked, under cross-examination, about basically 3 of the people around Jackson and how it was her opinion that they were taking advantage of him. She was in a position to know this to some extent, even though she hadn’t talked to Jackson in years. She was working with police to surreptitiously tape phone conversations she was having with Marc Schaffel and she said Schaffel would brag to her. According to an Associated Press (AP) report titled “Rowe says Jackson a victim of ‘vultures’ ”, Rowe says Marc Schaffel actually bragged to her about how much money he was making off of Jackson. She also said Schaffel was “full of shit”, then quickly apologized for using the expletive in the courtroom. From the report:

She said they recruited her to make a video praising Jackson, then sold it for millions and kept the money. She said the organizer of the video, Marc Schaffel, bragged to her about how much money he was making off Jackson. “He was out to hurt Michael and in addition would hurt my children,” Rowe said. (see Rowe Says Jackson a Victim of ‘Vultures’ )

She seemed incredibly angry at Schaffel. More from that article:

She reserved her most vitriolic statements for Schaffel, who she said bragged to her that he was being paid for the video and that he had many plans to make money off Jackson. “He just bragged about how he had taken advantage of an opportunity,” she said. “He said he was going to make sure Michael’s career was saved.” At one point she used an expletive to describe Schaffel, then turned to the judge and apologized. Rowe said she considered Schaffel, Konitzer and Wiesner to be liars. (see Rowe Says Jackson a Victim of ‘Vultures’)

This somewhat corroborates part of the testimony from Ann Gabrial (Kite) who testified very early on in the trial. She, too, said that from her vantage point the people around Jackson were taking advantage of him and didn’t seem to have his best interests at heart. Rowe also testified that it was Schaffel who set up a meeting between her, him, and Weisner at the famed Ivy restaurant where she was photographed. She said it was Schaffel’s way of getting even because he and Weisner were ousted from Jackson’s inner circle. Now I guess the public has a fairly good idea about where all the false information planted in the media about the Nation of Islam taking over Jackson’s life may have came from. From the AP article:

She said Schaffel once set her up by inviting her to lunch at a Beverly Hills restaurant and informing tabloid photographers she would be there in order to have her photographed with him and Wiesner. She said the incident happened the same day as a major meeting of Jackson power brokers at the Beverly Hills Hotel, a meeting to which Schaffel was not invited. She said it was his way of getting even.

Unlike the testimony expected, Rowe said she was excited about doing the rebuttal interview. Some pro-prosecution pundits and reporters claimed Jackson was holding access of her children over Rowe’s head. Not so, says Rowe. She had previously testified that there was no quid pro quo and that she, herself, asked if she could be reacquainted with Jackson and his children. In other words, it wasn’t initiated by Jackson nor was it dangled in front of her like a carrot to get her to do the rebuttal video. Yesterday (April 28), she said she didn’t necessarily fault Jackson for keeping the children from her, but rather lawyers and advisers that may have interfered. Here’s a bit more information about what she testified to from an AP article titled “Jackson’s ex-wife testifies in molestation trial”:

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. (see Jackson’s ex-wife testifies in molestation trial)

The prosecution didn’t try to impeach her with any previous statements she made about being “scripted”. That has led many to believe that she may not have said what the prosecution claimed she would. There has been some asinine spin coming out in the aftermath of Rowe’s testimony by these desperate shrewish female analysts and raving lunatic male analysts who can’t stand to deal with things they don’t understand. Remember, it isn’t just Rowe we’re talking about here. The prosecution also claimed Rowe’s attorney, Iris Finsilver, would confirm that Rowe was scripted as well. She did not confirm that. The defense didn’t even cross-examine Finsilver. As pointed out by Savannah Guthrie, the prosecution didn’t promise some wishy-washy or convoluted connection between Rowe and “scripted” interview. They flat out proffered to Judge Rodney Melville that Rowe would confirm that she, too, was “scripted”. The following is from their opening statement. The following is from the prosecution’s opening statement:

“Debbie Rowe will testify to some interesting evidence in this case. She’s 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 she’s doing the interview, when they didn’t 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.”

Clearly no such thing happened to Rowe, who was called to buttress Janet Arvizo’s testimony of being “scripted”. But what’s worse is that another prosecution witness, Hamid Moslehi – the man who actually shot both interviews with Rowe and the Arvizos– also testified that the Arvizos weren’t scripted either. Add that to what Rowe said yesterday, and you have a whole bunch of nothing for the prosecution. It isn’t illegal to script an interview. What this “conspiracy” nonsense was supposed to be about is the kidnapping and false imprisonment of the accusing family. Thus, this “scripting” allegation was ridiculous from the word go. According to that AP report titled “Jackson’s ex-wife testifies in molestation trial”, 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 Jackson’s ex-wife testifies in molestation trial )

Many people don’t realize that she is the one who initially filed for divorce from Jackson. She is also the one who initiated the process to terminate her parental rights. She says Jackson’s children don’t call her “mother” because she doesn’t want them to. This is clearly not a woman easily intimidated, and she certainly doesn’t seem the type to be strong-armed to do anything by anybody. As a matter of fact, she testified on the stand, according to the AP: “As Mr. Jackson knows, no one can tell me what to say” (see article). But you wouldn’t have gotten that impression listening to some of the spun drivel yesterday. You would not BELIEVE how that bad element – a subsection of the media — tried to spin Rowe’s testimony. I almost got dizzy just listening to it! Just days ago, almost everyone — including Diane Dimond, Jim Hammer, Ann Bremner, Stacey Hannowitz (sp?), Bill Fallon, Nancy Grace and even defense attorneys like Michael Cardoza — all seemed so confident in what Rowe would say against Jackson. And this may have blinded them from taking a wait and see approach. Remember, these aren’t supposed to be people who act like they have a dog in this fight. They’re there to analyze information and/or report the facts. But the way they were salivating over what Rowe could….may….might…..was supposed to say, was absurd. In a previous MJEOL Bullet written before her testimony, I talked about a few other prosecution witnesses whose testimony didn’t live up to the prosecution-hype; and included a warning to be careful of what Rowe said based on previous statements she made at the hearing when she terminated her parental rights. But as they always do, the mainstream media acted as if they knew everything. So imagine my interest in watching their puzzled looks, long faces, and deflated enthusiasm after Rowe hit the stand. Now instead of accepting the fact that either the prosecution lied to get Rowe on the stand in hopes that she would lambaste Jackson, or instead of calling the prosecution unprepared, some of these same pro-prosecution pundits are now trying to make excuses as to why she didn’t live up to the prosecution’s hype. Some say that they saw early reports from Jane Valez-Mitchell and continuing reports from yesterday with Diane Dimond, Stacy Brown, Gloria Allred, and Susan Filan who attempted to suggest that Rowe’s some kind obsessed Jackson fan, and therefore, that’s why she didn’t say what the prosecution wanted. Of those four mentioned previously, Dimond and Allre are the only ones still claiming that Rowe’s testimony was some kind of “corroboration” of any of the prosecution’s allegations, if you can believe that. Speaking of Dimond, she had her words rammed back down her throat via Matt Drudge. Drudge’s website posted the link to an article Dimond wrote for the New York Post just days before Rowe’s testimony. The title of that Dimond’ article: “Wife No. 2 Will Zing the King of Pop” written April 24 2005. In what has turned out to be a completely ludicrous article, Dimond wrote, “Rowe knows where the prescription-drug bodies are buried” and that “Debbie Rowe is mad!” Yeah, right. Well she certainly wasn’t getting this information from Rowe. As more often than not, say some observers, Dimond was completely wrong about the info she was spreading regarding this situation. She further insulted Jackson with, “I think I feel another Jackson trip to the hospital coming on.” That didn’t happen. As a matter of fact, Jackson arrived smiling and seemed absolutely giddy when he left the courthouse on Day 1 of Rowe’s testimony. The tabloid reporter wrote, “District Attorney Tom Sneddon…will present Debbie Rowe as one of the prosecution’s strongest conspiracy witnesses.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Who told her that? Or was she just making it up? Dimond continued, “Suddenly, all those pundit declarations that the conspiracy portion of this case is weak become suspect.” Hum…I think the only things “suspect” are her ludicrous assertions before Rowe hit the stand and how she has gone out of her way to shill for the prosecution. Remember, she’s not a blogger. She’s supposedly an “objective” reporter. She wrote, “She could turn out to be the type of witness who ‘volunteers’ things during testimony.” Rowe didn’t turn out to be anything close to that. As a matter of fact, Rowe stated emphatically that she wanted to keep her personal life, personal. Period. Dimond penned, “But now here comes Debbie Rowe — and she is expected to tell the same tale, of having been ordered to follow a script prepared by some (if not all) of the unindicted co-conspirators. That’s exactly what Tom Sneddon promised in his opening statement.” Again, that didn’t happen. And it’s becoming more and more suspicious as to what the prosecution hoped to get out of Rowe. I certainly don’t want to become suspicious that Sneddon got his information about Rowe from Dimond, or someone like her. I certainly don’t want to think that Sneddon thought Rowe was bitterly angry at Jackson because the media told him so. I certainly don’t hope that Sneddon argued before the judge to include Rowe’s testimony based on what he’d been told by tabloid reporters. Lisa Pinto, too, seems to have gone off the deep end trying to argue that Rowe’s testimony helped Sneddon. I kid you not. She appeared on Dayside w/ Linda Vester (fox) April 28 2005 and totally appeared to be in her own world. Even Vester didn’t seem to be buying it. Pre-Rowe declarations from Ann Bremner of “corroboration, corroboration, corroboration” didn’t pan out either. She has flip flopped on various aspects of this trial seemingly depending on what day it is; sometimes depending on who’s show she’s on. Poor Arthur Aidala appearing on Studio B (fox) and Susan Filan (cnn) have even suggested that prosecutors could argue Jackson’s henchmen or someone got to Rowe. Yeah right. If only they could use that excuse with the numerous prosecution witnesses that have not testified as prosecutors promised. Aidala’s and Filan’s theory is made all the more foolish because it’s also been reported that Rowe was out to dinner with prosecutors the night before her testimony, and she says she hasn’t spoken to Jackson in years. And don’t even get me started on the asinine temper tantrums thrown by the likes of Nancy Grace! Some observers are already reporting that she appeared on MSNBC this morning and behaved like a two-year old throwing a temper tantrum. You would have thought that somebody snatched the lollipop right out of her mouth and slapped her across the face! So all of this whining and all of these foolish explanations aren’t amounting to much. For a group of people that claim Jackson isn’t living in reality, they should check to make sure they, themselves, aren’t seeing a caterpillar sitting on a mushroom and smoking a hookah, ala Alice in Wonderland. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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