Posted by MAY 3 2005 (4:53 PM) — Prosecutors tried to clean up Debbie Rowe’s testimony by calling police Sgt. Steve Robel to the stand to talk about what Rowe told him in a March 2004 interview. He says Rowe’s comments about Jackson weren’t nearly as glowing as she later testified to on the stand. He claims Rowe called Jackson a “sociopath”. The defense wanted the jury to hear the entire tape of her interview with police, but the judge said they couldn’t play it during the prosecution’s presentation of their “case”. The defense contends that Rowe made those derogatory statements against Jackson because she was angry regarding the custody issue. Remember, Rowe was called to the stand by the prosecution under the pretenses that she would say her rebuttal interview was scripted and that she was in a sense coerced to say nice things about Jackson. Impeaching Rowe may have also given the defense yet another strong argument. They could very well point to Rowe as yet another prosecution witness who will say whatever she wants to say — regardless of whether or not she’s under oath — to get what she wants. One pro-prosecution observer commented about how furious she was with the prosecution’s “case” because, according to this observer, it gives Jackson’s defense team another way to paint Jackson as a victim of the people around him; showing that Rowe, yet another person, will say whatever she wants at different times for her own purposes. The defense, however, may not have even needed to go that far. According to reports, even with Rowe’s baggage, she apparently never told the police that she was scripted for the rebuttal interview. So if these reports are accurate, the main things she was supposed to corroborate according to prosecutors, she had never even alleged those things happened. If the reports are accurate, does this mean that when the prosecution made the claim that she would say she was scripted, they obviously weren’t telling the truth? And that this backfired on them so spectacularly because of that? The prosecution also called a “financial expert” to the stand to talk about what he pieced together concerning Jackson’s finances. He claims that Jackson was hundreds of millions of dollars in debt around the Bashir “documentary”. And the prosecution contends that he “panicked”, kidnapped a family, made them say nice things about him and molested a kid. There are several problems with that theory, as pointed out by both pro-prosecution observers and pro-defense observers. First, the logic. The vast majority say it is simply illogical to suggest that someone so worried about his financial state would then take the next step to break the law by kidnapping a family of people, sending them on shopping sprees, etc. and force them to say nice things about him. What’s worse is that Jackson never even included the family’s interview in the final rebuttal documentary that was aired on Fox. One would think that if you go through all the trouble of breaking the law, you’d actually USE what you allegedly broke the law to get. Not so, in this case. Second, if he was so broke, how is the prosecution explaining where the money came from to send the family on shopping sprees, get bikini waxes, fly them to Brazil, etc. Third, the defense asked this “expert” if it would be relevant to know that Jackson could accept one deal and improve any possible liquidity issues in a day’s time. The expert gave what some considered to be a smart-ass remark, replying, “If it could be solved, why wasn’t it?” Well, that’s the point. Apparently Jackson wasn’t so “panicked” and “worried” about his finances after the Bashir “documentary” that he would have broken the law by kidnapping and holding a family hostage. Again, the prosecution’s theory for the conspiracy revolves around a financial motive. If it were that simple as to make a deal to “secure” his financial situation, he would have just made the deal. There wouldn’t have been a reason to go through all the trouble by breaking the law to kidnap/threaten/hold a family hostage. This info will be updated as soon as more information becomes available.
MAY 3 2005 (12:45PM) — New information from NBC today says that Michael Jackson’s defense team plans to call Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Mac Culkin during the course of it’s case. Shady prosecution witnesses who have had devastating financial run-ins with Jackson — like Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, and Kassim Adool — claimed that Jackson either molested or acted inappropriately with Robson, Barnes and Culkin. Neither one of these now young men have ever made an allegation against Jackson. And all of them, as well as their family members, have repeatedly and vehemently denied that Jackson ever molested or acted inappropriately with them. Yesterday (May 2 2005), the prosecution put a lot of court watchers to sleep with the introduction of phone records between people working around Jackson. The prosecution obviously wanting the jurors to overlook the fact that all of these people were, at that time, working with each other. Further, that there was no way of knowing what they were discussing with each other, let alone if they were hatching some sinister plot around the Arvizo family. What’s worse for the prosecution, during cross-examination, defense attorney Robert Sanger pointed out numerous phone calls that were made TO Jackson’s associates. At one point, Sanger revealed, the accusing family called Frank Tyson numerous times AFTER they allegedly “escaped” from Neverland. The prosecution also claimed that two withdrawals by Marc Schaffel from a Jackson-related bank account — one for $1 million and a second for $500,000 — is somehow tied to some “conspiracy”. The prosecution, however, appears to have no idea what the money was really for. And quite frankly, the fact that Schaffel could easily get access to a $1.5 million appears to run contradictory to what they alleged in this “case”. They claimed Jackson was so “cash poor” after the Bashir documentary that he panics and kidnaps a family of people, holds them hostage, then gets them to do a rebuttal interview. Well, he couldn’t have been too cash poor if Schaffel, who has been accused by numerous people of basically syphoning-off money from Jackson without his knowledge, could waltz into a bank and get his hands on $1.5. Appearing on the Abrams Report May 2 2005, Jim Moret says that this money was presumably to go towards production of the Fox rebuttal documentary called “Take Two: The Footage you were Never Meant to See”. From that show:
JIM MORET: That’s the big question. What does it show? The prosecution didn’t offer anything frankly to explain the million and a half dollars. Presumably, however, this was simply to pay for the shooting and production of this rebuttal video. And frankly, I don’t know — if you say Michael Jackson was involved in orchestrating this rebuttal video, then he’s guilty of conspiring to create good P.R. Big deal! That’s what I say. And also, don’t forget, according to the prosecution’s own timeline, the alleged molestation didn’t even occur until after this rebuttal interview was shown.
The family’s interview didn’t make the final version of the broadcast Fox rebuttal documentary, though.