Mothers Testify While Delusional Media Downplay Defense Bombshells – MB#264

Posted by

Mothers Testify While Delusional Media Downplay Defense Bombshells – MB #264 Update Two mothers testify that they trust Jackson, while some media pundits seem to have completely lost the plot After their sons testified under oath that Jackson never molested or acted inappropriately with them, the mothers and sisters of both Wade Robson and Brett Barnes took the stand as well. These two, Wade and Brett, are important because they have specifically been named as “victims” by the prosecution. They aren’t children the defense just pulled out of the sky for no reason. Joy Robson and Marie Barnes provided a stark contrast to the three mothers the prosecution put on to testify in their “case”. For the prosecution, it was June Chandler, Blanca Francia and Janet Arvizo. June Chandler hasn’t seen or spoken to her son, Jordan (the 1993 accuser), in 11 years. Blanca Francia sold stories to tabloids, took $20,000 from Hard Copy for an interview, and changed her story during a deposition in 1993 and 1994. Janet Arvizo came off as a complete nut-job, and “escaped” from Neverland numerous times with one of those times being right before she got a body wax paid for by Jackson. I could go on and on about her. Joy Robson testified that she has known Jackson for a very long time and that she’s spent hours talking to him about a number of things. She said of Jackson, “I feel like he’s a member of my family. I trust him with my children,” (see Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson). She says that she and her family have visited Jackson’s Neverland ranch about 4 times a year since 1991, but that Jackson himself was only present a handful of times (see Witnesses say no improper sexual activity occurred). J. Robson also says she, too, has logged time in Jackson’s bed. On the stand, she recounted one episode where she and her son spent the day sitting in Jackson’s bed, with Jackson, watching cartoons and eating popcorn. J. Robson calls Jackson unique and says he has a “very pure personality”. From an Associated Press (AP) article dated May 7 2005 titled “Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson” :

“He’s a very special person,” she added. “He’s not the boy next door. He’s Michael Jackson. He’s very unique. He has a very pure personality. To know him is to love him and to trust him.” (see Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson)

J. Robson had a few things to say about June Chandler as well. Her opinion cast J. Chandler in a different light in comparison to how prosecutors wanted to show her to the jury. She described J. Chandler as a “gold-digger”. Reportedly, this isn’t the first time someone has used that term and/or similar inferences to describe J. Chandler. For example, when J. Chandler was on the stand under cross-examination, she was asked if she’d ever asked Jackson for a “$4 million dollar loan.” J. Robson testified that when she was at Neverland, she’d spoken to June Chandler a few times. She says Chandler wanted to be “mistress of Neverland” and would order staff members around like she owned the place. More from that AP article:

Joy Robson said she had been at Neverland with the boy and his mother but spoke to them only a few times. On cross-examination she said, “My impression of (the mother) is she wanted to be mistress of Neverland. She would order the staff around like she owned it. My impression of (her) is she was a gold-digger.” (see Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson)

“Mistress of Neverland?” That’s quite interesting indeed. Some observers are suspicious that the public may not yet know the full extent of the relationship between June Chandler and Jackson. By the way, Joy Robson’s son, Wade, also remembers June Chandler as being very bossy. Reportedly, he also tried to explain that his mother (Joy) would have to remind her (June) that Neverland is Michael Jackson’s house, not hers. Continued from the AP article:

Mesereau asked, “Did you feel she was trying to use Michael Jackson?” “Yes,” she said. (see Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson)

Again, Robson isn’t the first person to have this impression of June Chandler. But the prosecution pursued a line of questioning with J. Robson under cross-examination which ultimately made no sense. More from the AP:

Sneddon, taking up questioning again, asked whether Robson was jealous of the woman “because she replaced you.” “Absolutely not,” said the witness. “… I had no wish to be (her).” “I asked if you were jealous of her position,” Sneddon said acerbically. “What position would that be?” asked the mother. “Being close to Michael Jackson,” said Sneddon. “I don’t know that she was close to Michael Jackson,” the witness answered. “My personal knowledge of that weekend was Michael Jackson trying to elude (her) for that weekend.” (see Mothers of two boys testify to deep trust in Michael Jackson)

Ouch. I bet he wishes he’d never gone down that road. But this line of questioning was ridiculous because it’s quite clear no one “replaced” anyone. And given the fact that Joy Robson is still close to the Jacksons to this day certainly shows J. Robson wouldn’t have been worried about Chandler anyway. “It was just a bad way to cross her”, says one pro-prosecution observer who isn’t so sure he’s on the prosecution’s side any more. Surprisingly, he’s not the only one. But what’s worse for the prosecution is that through their cross of Joy Robson, it is now before the jury that June Chandler is a “gold-digger”, that she was ordering around Jackson’s staff as if she owned the place and that Jackson himself was trying to avoid June. This immediately reminded some observers of Gavin Arvizo’s testimony. He says there was a period of time before this “case” evolved that Jackson acted like he didn’t want to be around him; would give him numbers that turned out to be disconnected, and seemed to be avoiding him. What could be the connection between Gavin Arvizo and June Chandler? Well, it may be their attitudes and behavior. Through previous testimony from numerous witnesses – including Cynthia Bell, Kiki Fournier, and various teachers – Gavin Arvizo was disruptive, disrespectful and also ordered people around. Now there’s this strange parallel with June Chandler ordering people around and Jackson trying to avoid her for a whole weekend. It came out in court that J. Robson was also suspicious of law enforcement back in 1993. She says she refused to allow the police to speak to her son alone when he was younger because she thought they would try to manipulate him. A Lompoc Record report titled “Witnesses say no improper sexual activity occurred” dated May 6 2005:

The woman said she refused to allow police to speak with her son alone when a different boy made child-molestation allegations against Jackson in 1993 because she thought they might try to manipulate her son. Sneddon asked her why she would trust Michael Jackson and not trained law enforcement. “I don’t know them,” she said. “I know Michael Jackson.” (see Witnesses say no improper sexual activity occurred)

She definitely had a reason to be suspicious that police would “manipulate” her son. Ironically, Jason Francia’s mother, Blanca Francia, reportedly once complained about police talking to her son alone as well. And it wasn’t until after those sessions with police that her son started making allegations against Jackson. Explosive information about some of the questions asked of Francia by police has come out through court documents filed by the defense. What happened during Francia’s questioning was, some say, tantamount to scaring Francia into making allegations by lying to him. According to those police interviews, J. Francia first said he didn’t remember Jackson putting his hands anywhere on his body that made him feel uncomfortable. He’d never made an allegation. One detective, Det. Neglia, talked to Francia and seemed to be coaching him or at least talking him into believing that Jackson did touch him inappropriately but that he (Francia) just couldn’t remember it. The court doc had excerpts from Francia’s police interviews. This is what Neglia said when Francia denied being touched inappropriately:

Det. Neglia: Okay, but what I am getting at is that maybe I am not being obvious enough. What I am saying is maybe he put his hands someplace on you where he shouldn’t have. Maybe he put his hands on you someplace that made you feel uncomfortable. And that’s why you are not remembering. …It’s a little of bit of (sic) a different kind of not remembering, one is because you are choosing not to, and one is that you just can’t call back the uh, the event. And I think of what you doing (sic) is tickling and all this stuff, is trying forcing (sic) yourself not to remember. (see Suspicious Police Questioning of Jason Francia – Hot doc)

They lied to Francia, telling him that Mac Culkin was being molested by Jackson. And probably one of the most ridiculously absurd and vile things they did was to lie to him about Corey Feldman. It seems as if they tried to scare Francia into making an allegation by saying Feldman was doing drugs and would die by age 22 because he was molested by Jackson. What we know now is that police interrogated Feldman for numerous hours and Feldman, too, has always denied Jackson ever abused him. Celebrity Justice (CJ) actually got their hands on a taped interview between Feldman and police (see Do Feldman Tapes Indicate Jackson Witch-Hunt?). But Jason Francia had no way of knowing that Feldman was never abused by Jackson; no way of knowing that Feldman’s life choices had nothing to do with Jackson. More from the interview between the police and Jason Francia:

Det. Neglia: He’s a junkie now, he gets arrested, he doesn’t act or anything, he gets high. He packs his nose with cocaine and he’s going to die by the time he is 22 years old. Jason Francia: How old is he? Det. Neglia: About 21. But that’s the kind of life he is living, and it’s got to do with being exposed to people like [Jackson], and having nobody to protect them and to take them out. Det. Birchim: Like you had your mom. Det. Neglia: Like your mom pulled you out, and you’re, you’re candid, and you’re (sic) honesty with us is going to help us. To pull the next kid out, it might even be too late for Macauly already. But these kids that he’s traveling with are on tour right now. Maybe we can pull them out of it. (see Suspicious Police Questioning of Jason Francia – Hot doc)

So now we have a situation where the cops have lied to him about Jackson being a child molester, lied to him about Mac Culkin and Corey Feldman, and are claiming that other kids will be abused if Francia doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. It is situations like these that make people distrustful of police. The defense wants to bring in an expert in child interviewing techniques to testify about Francia’s questioning. This is the kind of thing that went on with Francia. They were on him to make an allegation. It is exactly this sort of behavior that Joy Robson wanted to avoid. She was correct, say most observers, in not trusting the police to interview he son alone given what has become known now. Joy Robson wasn’t the only mother who testified on Jackson’s behalf. Marie Barnes, Brett Barnes’s mother, also testified that nothing inappropriate happened between Jackson and her son. Barnes, from Melbourne, Australia, got to meet and travel with Jackson. She even says that at one point, just to make sure, she asked her son if Jackson had ever touched him inappropriately, which sort of snatched away a prosecution argument that she didn’t care about her kid. She did say, however, that she trusts Jackson and that he was a very nice person. __Media experiencing the pangs of being thrust into the truth__ I have to comment on some of the ridiculous media coverage. Any talking head who claims that the testimony of these powerful witnesses is somehow bad for the defense is absolutely delusional. Nothing the prosecution could have pulled under cross-examination could blunt the fact that they (prosecutors) put up witnesses who made allegations that were not true. The defense went right to the source, unlike the prosecution, and allowed these kids to tell their side of the story. What was revealed were two maligned young men who seemed angry that they have been used by the prosecution and their shyster witnesses in this war against Jackson. The jury could very well see them as victims of a prosecution that doesn’t want to acknowledge facts that they don’t agree with. And the pundits are looking for any way possible to argue around the fact that the defense is steadily dismantling some of the media mainstays; some of the ludicrous notions that prosecutors tried to sell this jury. For most of them, it is a rude awakening to know that 1) Jackson doesn’t isolate these children from their families; 2) Little girls, too, have slept in Jackson’s bed; and 3) There is no specific age that Jackson stopped hanging around these people who he considered to be friends. As mentioned in a previous MJEOL Bullet, what is one of the most infuriating things to watch with regard to this group-think media coverage is the way in which these pundits are now trying to hang their hats on the number of sleepovers. They’re claiming that this will outweigh the fact that two prosecution-alleged “victims” aren’t victims at all and that they were angry enough to come to court, deal with the media attention, and tell the truth. Jackson’s not on trial for letting kids stay in his suites when he’s on tour or letting them sleep in his two-story personal living quarters (“bedroom”) at Neverland. That is not the issue before the court. But some in the media are acting as if he’s on trial for having sleepovers; acting as if this is the first time they’ve ever heard this before! Where the hell have they been for the past 2 years?? Now their panties are in a bunch over something that they should have known before now. I would bet money that if Jackson had ONLY allowed Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo sleep in his room, the media would have been screaming bloody murder. Their first question would have been ‘why are the ONLY boys making allegations against him the ONLY boys allowed to sleep in his room? Surely that can’t be a coincidence!’ These pundits would have demanded an answer to that question. The next question would have been public calls for the defense to produce other children who also slept in Jackson’s room who say nothing happened. And if the defense couldn’t produce any, they would have used the LACK of other sleepovers to argue his ‘guilt’. If the defense simply argued that these people weren’t victims but not actually produced them, these same knuckleheaded pundits would be screaming for the defense to produce these children. And if the defense couldn’t, these talking heads would have used that to argue ‘guilt’. What may also be bad for the prosecution is the number of times various kids, male and female, have been in Jackson’s room. Remember, the prosecution is trying to paint Jackson as an uncontrollable, impulsive, “serial child molester”. So if that’s the case, and there have been kids around him for decades now – even some who have slept in his room – then, some jurors may be asking themselves why there aren’t 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100 children making allegations against Jackson. Hearing the media’s feigned shock and watching them attempt to substitute their opinions for the opinions of the people involved – namely Jackson and families who trust him – is baffling to a number of non-media observers. When the defense puts on evidence to show that these aren’t targeted, isolated children or specific or rare instances, now all of a sudden these same media know-nothings are screaming from the rooftops as if the number of sleepovers is somehow proof of ‘guilt’. Ridiculous! Again, there is very little the prosecution can do, if anything, to blunt the fact that they have come across as knowingly putting on witnesses to make allegations that weren’t true. That they, for all intents and purposes according to some observers, have damn near suborned perjury from 3rd party witnesses, when they KNEW the actual “alleged victims” have never made an allegation against Jackson at all and would come to court to testify. By the defense going to the source, the kids themselves, the jury is left with the impression that prosecutors may have been trying to hide them because their testimony is so detrimental to the “case”. Attorney Jonna Spilbor appeared on The Abrams Report May 5 2005 to talk about this issue. She says that by the defense going to the source and putting these young men and women on the stand, it was tantamount to “taking a bat to the shins of the prosecution’s case.” From the transcript:

JONNA SPILBOR: …I‘ve got to say this is like taking a bat to the shins of the prosecution case. I mean he called—Tom Sneddon called witnesses to say that these exact kids were molested and—so they are victims. Now they are going to take the stand out of their own mouths and say it never happened. That‘s powerful. Am I the only one who thinks there‘s an elephant in the room? Ethically, was it OK for Tom Sneddon to put these—the third-party witnesses on the stand… knowing that the alleged victims are going to deny this? (see ‘The Abrams Report’ for May 5)

That’s a question none of these whiny, crybaby, chicken-little pundits want to deal with. So what’s left is their whiny opinions about their “visceral reactions” to sleepovers. To hell with their visceral reactions! That’s not what this “case” is about. One thing they should be aware of by now is that Jackson will never be like them, didn’t grow up like them, and doesn’t have the corrupt way of thinking they do. And they will never be able to project their lifestyle onto him. What’s interesting is that society is highly acceptable of things that Jackson may find completely inappropriate; some of those things being parents hitting/spanking children and people committing adultery. From all accounts, he thinks this behavior is very highly inappropriate, but society accepts it. Is Jackson trying to put people in jail because he disagrees with their opinion of what’s appropriate and what isn’t? No. Does he treat people like garbage because of it? No. Accepting that people sometimes commit adultery in this society is like accepting that we all breathe oxygen. It’s just the way it is. This, too, is something that Jackson apparently thinks is highly inappropriate. Is he trying to put people in jail because of it? No. Does he treat people like garbage because of it? No. Unfortunately, the public doesn’t lend the same level of respect for Jackson’s opinions as he does for theirs. Now there shouldn’t be any doubt in people’s minds as to why Jackson spends time with children. He doesn’t have to hear children whining about their “visceral reactions”, or trying to project their own life experiences onto him through judgmental opinions. What is clear now to the vast majority of both pro-defense and pro-prosecution observers, with whom MJEOL is in contact, is that the prosecution either IS or ABOUT TO BE in a world of hurt. These past two days were absolutely brutal to their “case” against Jackson. By some accounts, the defense has only just begun to forcibly pull the media, kicking and screaming, into the truth. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply