Podcast: Play in new window | Download
JUNE 14 2006 – I have never been one to depend on the media to accurately report or review anything concerning Michael Jackson. With yesterday (June 13 2006) being the one year anniversary of Jackson’s vindication by a non-black, conservative Santa Maria jury, I didn’t really expect the media to spend any time acknowledging the day.
Imagine my surprise as I flipped to MSNBC and caught a segment of the Allison Stewart-hosted show “The Most” where they mentioned the one year mark. Since justice was served without a media-hoped-for “guilty” verdict, I expected to see a shallow, half-assed and rather short “review” of events about the trial.
I was not disappointed. It’s quite clear that some are still in total denial about the truth of the trial, and the truth of what was revealed about the allegations in court.
In the very few minutes discussed about the topic, Stewart and her guest — a male Access Hollywood bobblehead reporter — did everything but talk about the TRIAL.
They mentioned events which had absolutely nothing to do with the devastation that played out inside the courtroom, preferring to focus on Jackson standing atop an SUV, showing up in his pajamas, and a wannabe poignant moment by the bobblehead where he talked of playing with his new camera, some 5 hours after the verdict was announced.
Not to be outdone, pro-prosecution commentator Susan Filan — possibly jockeying for a permanent TV host gig — guest hosted The Abrams Report. She and her guest, Jim Moret, took the opportunity to repeat unsubstantiated rumors about Jackson’s children, to claim Jackson has a drug problem, and to allege Jackson went to an orphanage specifically because he was allegedly thinking of adopting a Japanese kid.
The coverage of Jackson would be laughable if it weren’t so tragically pathetic, or if a subset of ?Wacko Journos? weren’t seemingly rewarded for their shoddy, questionable reporting.
For example, you would think the public is supposed to care about the paternity of Jackson’s children, which he’s raised since birth. There is no public evidence that these children aren’t biologically his. But this has become a subject into which hateful, bastard tabloid reporters are trying to delve into for their own reasons.
Honestly, I don’t care if he grew them in a freakin’ cabbage patch with The Great Pumpkin, Peter Pan and the tooth fairy protecting them. He’s the father. And unlike a certain mommy-come-lately ex-wife, he’s never abandoned them or given up any of his rights to raise them.
Jackson isn’t a soap opera character created by a hack writer for the purposes of entertaining media members. It’s absurd to use the one year anniversary of his vindication to further push garbage down the throats of those who may be looking for an answer to the question, ?Hey what was that Michael Jackson trial all about anyway?’the spiteful way in which these people appear to be ?remembering? the trial, is more evidence of malicious intent to those of us who initially disregarded their half-assed reporting beginning as far back as Nov 2003.
Filan and Moret were two of those commentators who had their heads stuck up the prosecutor’s ass for most of the trial regardless of how stupid they sometimes looked.
Filan certainly was not the only ?monkey? doing work for the ?organ grinder?, as one Jackson fan so succinctly put it. And I?m surprised Moret’s head hasn’t collapsed from being filled with (and later spewing) the amount of crap he’s been spreading lately. And boy, do they love Jackson in pajamas!
Thus, it came as no surprise to me to see the two of them chatting it up about EVERYTHING BUT what came out about the prosecution’s “case”.
While Jackson standing on top of an SUV may be memorable to some, it doesn’t have a thing to do with what happened INSIDE the courtroom. Nothing at all. Neither did him showing up fresh from the hospital in his pajamas one day.
Speaking of that pajama incident, there was no mention of the fact that Jackson had gone to the hospital earlier that morning, which caused him to be late, and to be threatened with bail revocation had he not high-tailed it to the courthouse — regardless of what he was wearing.
Something tells me had Jackson shown up wearing a hospital gown, the collective media’s 30 second soundbite headline would have been ?Wacko Jacko Wears Dress to Court?.
I?m sure the judge in the “case” would have flipped his lid had Jackson took an extra two hours to go home and put on his Sunday best just to look good for the media.
Honestly, maybe it’s too difficult for some of them to remember the actual trial because so many of their preconceived notions were shattered into a million pieces as they were forced to deal with facts contrary to what they had previously been told about Jackson.
Unforgettable examples of such facts are how it just did not make sense that a guy who was accused of molesting a boy would have a stack of heterosexual adult material — no gay or child porn — found in his house. Or how it turned out that Jackson wasn’t the one who beckoned the accusing family to come to Florida after the UK airing of the Bashir documentary set the media afire with speculation. Or how wacky the testimony of the accuser’s mother turned out to be. Arvizo is currently scheduled to go on trial for welfare fraud and perjury.
Maybe it physically hurts for some of them to admit the accuser’s testimony was all over the place, illogical in certain instances, and conflicted with that of his siblings? testimony and the testimonies of numerous witnesses?
I suppose it’s easier to appear to be exasperated over what they claim is the latest Jackson news (Moret), or to look like they just stepped in dog poop while trying to insult Jackson (Filan).
There are also a couple of male “reporters” –and I use that term loosely?who seriously should check their love/hate man-crush on Michael Jackson at the door before they write another sentence about him (You know who you are). Their recent reports on him are almost written as if they were spurned or rejected suitors, who now want some payback by engaging in rumor-mongering.
All in all, the crappy way in which the remembrance of Jackson’s acquittal was handled has rekindled my interest in bringing an ever-expanding group of guests/surfers more details about what happened INSIDE the damn courtroom in 2005.
Unfortunately for some of these media members, not all of the public is stuck-on-stupid. Whether Mr. Bobblehead or any of his colleagues realize it or not, the pubic is well aware that the 2005 ‘case’ made no sense even if they may not have all the specific details.
It’s common knowledge that the prosecution’s changing timeline made allegations alleged by the family seem totally implausible.
Who in their right minds believe the Arvizos were “held hostage” at Neverland during the same time they were living with Maj. Jay Jackson, spending Jackson’s money on everything from dinners to body waxes, keeping dental appointments, being flown to Florida with Chris Tucker on a private jet, and cashing a welfare check at a bank?
Not to mention the mother complaining to Azja Pryor that the family was being kept away from Jackson by his associates right during a time the accuser would later claim he was laying in bed getting molested. Woops!
Ah, but you see none of this was mentioned on any report which noted the one year mark of Jackson’s acquittal; probably because it didn’t show Jackson as bizarre or guilty.
Another thing which didn’t point to Jackson’s guilt was the accuser’s own testimony. The allegations were made, sure. But they made no logical sense.
Many reporters begrudgingly admitted that the accuser appeared arrogant, smart-alecky, unclear about what was supposed to have happened, and unemotional about it on the stand.
At one point he claimed ?molestation? began BEFORE the video rebuttal interview they tape on Feb 19-20 2003, before their interview with the Los Angeles Dept of Children & Family Services (DCFS) and before their sit down interview with defense private investigator Bradley Miller.
Then the story changed to all of it beginning AFTER the rebuttal video, DCFS, and Brad Miller interviews, and right in the middle of the most severe public scrutiny that Jackson has ever received about his relationship with children.
It’s quite clear there was one set of allegations when the DA filed charges against Jackson in Dec 2003. And another set of allegations which concluded with the grand jury indictment.
Not many of these talking heads have even acknowledged the importance of a changing timeline, changing charges and changing number of counts in the ?case?. I guess details like that take a backseat to Jackson standing on top of an SUV.
Through third party witnesses like the social worker who interviewed the family on Feb 20 2003 and the Dean of the school where the accuser attended, the public learned the accuser repeatedly admitted that Jackson did not molest him.
Dean Alpert came forward himself to reveal the fact that the accuser told him of Jackson’s innocence. On the stand, Arvizo had to admit that he?d twice denied the allegations to Alpert. From the transcript:
MESEREAU: Okay. But sometime in that conversation, Dean Alpert looked you in the eye and said, “Are these allegations that Mr. Jackson sexually abused you true,” right?
GAVIN A: Uh-huh.
MESEREAU: And you said they were not true, right?
GAVIN A: Yeah. I told him that Michael didn’t do anything to me.
MESEREAU: Okay. Mr. Alpert asked you twice whether or not Michael Jackson had ever done anything of a sexual nature to you, correct?
GAVIN A: I don’t know if he asked me twice.
MESEREAU: Well, the first time he asked you, you shook your head “No,” right?
GAVIN: I don’t know.
MESEREAU: And the second time he asked you, you said to him, “No, he did not touch me in any sexually inappropriate way,” correct?
GAVIN: I don’t know.
MESEREAU: You don’t know?
GAVIN A: I’m pretty sure I told him that.
(p 1820 lines 11-28, p 1821 lines 1-3)
There are a string of people the accuser denied the allegations to. It was only after the family started shopping for attorneys ? settling on civil attorney Larry Feldman and his favorite shrink Stan Katz — that *poof* allegations of abuse magically appeared, and were pushed out through the same process the 1993 allegation was pushed: Civil attorney -> psychologist -> child services -> prosecutor.
And let’s not even get into the accuser once <a href=https://site2.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=13&lid=336>accusing his own mother of abusing him</a>; that he admitted to lying under oath during the JC Penney case; or that he told police he had never slept in the same bed with Jackson which was confirmed on the ill-named ?Living with Michael Jackson? Bashir documentary. Go back and watch the FULL segment involving the accuser.
__Built-in ?corroboration? fails__
His story was further complicated by the testimonies of his brother (Star) and sister (Davellin), who took the stand before he did.
Star Arvizo’s testimony was beyond ridiculous. Any accurate trial review would have noted that fact.
As pointed out at the time by prosecutor and commentator Jim Hammer (of all people!), in some instances what he told shrink Stan Katz and what he told the trial jury were like ?night and day? (see Greta Sustre-Mar8 2005, Cross examination).
It was through his testimony the public found out Jackson has at least two security cameras in and around his “bedroom”. From his testimony:
MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall in a police interview, when you were discussing Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, saying, “There’s a camera looking at you”‘sTAR A: Yes, when you walk through the hallway.
MESEREAU: And was there a camera that would look at you when you walked through the hallway into the area of Michael Jackson’s bedroom‘sTAR A: When you walked into his bedroom, yes.
(p 1351 lines 17-24)
Woops! And it continued:
MESEREAU: Do you have any idea if Mr. Jackson could see if anybody was walking into his bedroom through a camera‘sTAR A: Yes.
MESEREAU: Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Jackson about it‘sTAR A: Yes.
MESEREAU: Now, at this point, you had told the police there are sensors that you trip when you go into Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right‘sTAR A: Hallway.
MESEREAU: Hallway. That’s the hallway going into the bedroom, correct‘sTAR A: Yes.
MESEREAU: And what did you mean by “There are sensors that you trip”‘sTAR A: A bell goes off.
MESEREAU: And to your knowledge, where is the camera‘sTAR A: Above the doorways.
MESEREAU: And which doorway are you talking about‘sTAR A: The one where you enter Michael’s bedroom.
MESEREAU: Okay. And the camera produces a videotape, right‘sTAR A: I think so.
(p 1352 lines 4-23, p 1353 lines 4-5)
Try getting that into a 30 second sound bite.
Speaking of Jackson’s “bedroom”, the public also learned that his ?bedroom? isn’t a room at all, but rather a two-level large personal living quarters with 3 bathrooms, 2 beds, big screen tv, mirrors, and other furniture in it.
As noted above in the excerpt from the brother’s testimony, there is a ringing bell that goes off every time someone enters the hallway in relation to Jackson’s “bedroom”.
He testified that this bell/alarm was going off during both times he claimed he witnessed “abuse” for a couple of seconds after he had snuck into Jackson’s “bedroom” allegedly undetected. He would have had to be The Invisible Man and have the best timing on the face of the planet for this to be true.
The brother is the one who claimed the purpose of the bell/alarm was to alert Jackson. From the testimony:
MESEREAU: And your understanding is that the purpose of that bell is to let Michael Jackson know if somebody goes through his hallway, right‘sTAR
MESEREAU: That’s the purpose of the alarm, right‘ STAR
(p 1201 lines 2-7)
Of course the obvious question became how in the hell could he have snuck into Jackson’s ?bedroom? undetected and be standing in a hallway with a bell/alarm going off watching his brother getting allegedly ?molested?’twice?without anyone knowing about it?
What are the odds of one of these talking heads or obsessed online nutjobs doing an adequate break down of these facts in lieu of bitching about the paternity of Jackson’s kids or whining about how much money he’s got in his bank account?
__1108 a disaster for prosecutors__
The much hyped 1108 ?evidence? turned out to be a total disaster for the prosecution. I wrote a 4-part MJEOL Bullet titled ?1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? ? MJEOL Bullet #254? talking about whether or not the media-hyped 1993 allegations would do the kind of damage some in the media assumed it would. (<a href=https://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php’storyid=1529>Part 1</a> | <a href=https://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php’storyid=1535>Part 2</a> | <a href=https://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php’storyid=1548>Part 3</a> | <a href=https://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php’storyid=1569>Part 4</a>)
It was brutal for prosecutors, as well it should have been. They claimed in their ?case? that Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Mac Culkin were ?victims? of Jackson.
Instead of relying on those men’s words, they depended on the accusation of spiteful and deceitful ex-employees who were previously sued into bankruptcy by Jackson and who still owe him a million dollars in legal fees and judgments.
Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus and Kassim Abdool made allegations involving Barnes, Culkin, Robson and the 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler. All of their testimonies were annihilated on the stand.
As one observer commented at the time, it appeared as if none of these peoples? stories had ever been challenged before Mesereau started his cross-examination.
Further, the prosecution didn’t put these kids — now grown men ? on the stand. It was the defense who found out that none of three men had ever made an allegation against Jackson. They were essentially turned into ?victims? by prosecutors who, some say, tried to perpetrate a fraud to the judge and jurors.
Angry that his name was used to try to convict Jackson, Brett Barnes was particularly upset at prosecutors because he ?- and Wade Robson– repeatedly told police and prosecutors of Jackson’s innocence since they were children.
All three of their testimonies were absolutely and completely devastating to the prosecution.
The cross examinations of Jason Francia and his mother, Blanca Francia, further made it apparent that prosecutors shouldn’t have played the 1108 card. While some of these pro-prosecution huns wanted to cling to his testimony as powerful, it was anything but.
Fracia’s allegation was not credible, according to the jury foreman who gave an interview to Nancy Grace after the trial was over. At one point, he even compared Francia’s behavior ? probably his selective memory — on the stand to Janet Arvizo’s behavior on the stand. From that show:
GRACE: Mr. Rodriguez, did you believe the boy that came in that is now a youth minister that stated Jackson molested him in the past?
RODRIGUEZ: Well, we got a little problem with that because he had no idea where some of his money came from, and he didn‘t want to talk to his mother. And so those kind of things that we kind of didn‘t focus on, but it did keep — we kept that in the back of our minds.
GRACE: So would it be safe to say you did not believe him?
RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we had a hard time believing him.
GRACE: Yes. What about the one kid that became a youth minister, who stated plainly Jackson molested his — fondled his genitals?
RODRIGUEZ: Again, like you said earlier, you know, about his scenario or his testimony, it was hard to buy the whole story, when he acted like he knew nothing about it.
I mean, he acted so much like the mother of the other accuser, you know, he just didn‘t seem that credible. He didn‘t seem to convince us, like we wanted to be convinced. And he just — he was leaving too many little loopholes in his statements.
(see Grace Transcript June 13 2005)
In many ways, facts like these put a shadow over, if not totally throw into doubt — the entire assumption around the 1993 investigation. Some of the public simply assumed Jackson was guilty of something back then. And many of those are now questioning those assumptions given all of the information which came out in court involving what they had been told by the media were Jackson’s ?prior bad acts?.
Needless to say, this was not mentioned on any of the short, shallow trial reviews either. Not that I necessarily expected them to. But one can’t run away from the truth forever.
Was any of the previous info a part of any trial review or mention? Hell no. These things don’t make sense to a mind or entity looking for evidence to prove how they already feel about Jackson. And thus, it is ignored for more pressing matters, like Jackson in pajamas or rumors of him wanting to adopt a Japanese kid.
I don’t think that most of this subset of the media have mentioned that Jackson was in Japan recently to receive the Legend award from MTV Japan.
No mention of the news and video (some of which is on this website) of Jackson in Japan popping up all over the place, from the hugely popular TV show “SMAPxSMAP”, to shopping with his children at “bLister”, to trying his luck at a Pachinko Parlor. Somehow details like that slipped through the cracks — like so many others.
There is an obvious tag-team effect going on where a glorified tab reporter will lift rumors from the tabloids and spread them. Perfect example was Jim Moret who, yesterday, lifted recent rumors from the Daily Mirror and reported them as fact.
So, the next time you see pathetic hacks chasing Jackson’s tail for a story, or using a tabloid report as a cover to spread more unsubstantiated rumors because it?ll get them on TV, or a nutjob pushing his “source’s” agenda, just chalk it up to sour grapes.
Their golden goose has walked off the job. He didn’t do it kicking and screaming, or begging to be understood either. They didn’t get the verdict they wanted; truth be damned.
The position of many media members was made crystal clear to Jackson a long time ago, and cemented with the way they seemed to be fully set in the position of ?guilt?. And a subset of those lunkheads appeared to be enjoying their daily dish of prosecutorial excrement.
Those who still cling to the hope that Jackson is guilty of something?anything?need to get a f_cking life.
No amount of whining, name-calling, country-fried cackling, or history revisionism will change the fact that an innocent man went through the hell of an approx. 5 month trial based on untrue allegations which made no sense, contradicted one another, or couldn’t have possibly happened the way they were alleged to have happened.
And some who had the platform to take the reporting of this ?case? into another stratosphere altogether, chose to do nothing. Some of whom knew the truth and purposely sat on it. Others STILL know the truth and haven’t dared tell the public about what they’ve learned. They know who they are and I supposed they will have to live with that decision.
Until someone close enough to either the 2005 trial or the 1993 investigation grows the balls enough to admit the truth, a subset of the media will feel comfortable to serve up fresh batches of bull$hit??hot off the presses!