APRIL 12 2005 (12:00 AM ET) — Yesterday was a very trying day for the prosecution. Regardless of the 93 accuser’s mother’s testimony, they called witnesses who either changed their story and were wishy-washy or who admitted they were in it for the money. Yesterday, the mother was asked by Tom Mesereau if she’d told Jackson they were $5 million in debt and whether she asked Jackson for a $4 million loan back in 1993. She denied it, of course. She was also asked if her attorney threatened to ruin Jackson’s music deals with that 1993 lawsuit. She claimed she didn’t recall. How convenient. Bob Jones also testified yesterday about what he claimed was a “head licking” incident on a plane in 1993. He went back and forth about what he said and what he meant; what he approved for the book and what he didn’t approve for the book. The following is an excerpt from the cross-examination of Jones:
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Jones, I’m showing you what has been marked as Exhibit No. 803, okay? Do you see that? A. Uh-huh. Q. That starts off with a title that you said is not accurate and has not been approved, correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you told the prosecutor you had written the words at the bottom of the page that refer to licking, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. And is it your testimony that you have not approved the accuracy of that statement? A. That is correct. 5544-5545 (24-9)
Jones’s testimony prompted one legal analyst to cut to the chase and say that Jones may have fabricated this “head licking” incident in 1993 for his book to both cash-in and to make some kind of link with the current accusation. Jones did admit that he told someone else in an email that he was going to use the 1993 allegation as “insurance” for his job. In other words– as the defense suggested with Jones trying to deny it — he may have been trying to hold fabrications of that allegation over Jackson’s head trying to make sure Jackson would employ him for life to stave off a tell-all book from Jones. From the transcript:
Q. And you wrote that e-mail, correct? A. Yes. Yes. Q. And what you said in the e-mail was, in summary, that you might — and correct me if I’m wrong, that you thought your knowledge of the Chandlers might be an insurance policy for you? A. Uh-huh. Q. Correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. An insurance policy of employment, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. And what that means is, “I might try and hold over Michael’s head what I could say about the Chandlers,” right? MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object to counsel ascribing any meaning to those words. THE COURT: Sustained. 5548 (4-20)
When Jones was fired, some actually had the audacity to complain that his firing was done in a very bad way, etc. I guess now we see why he was ejected from the Jackson gravy train. The Jones book is being co-written by Stacy Brown, touted “Jackson family friend”, who has no connection to Michael Jackson. Brown’s attempt to cash-in with ridiculously sensationalized versions of someone’s “truth” apparently drew jeers from fans outside the courtroom. Clearly a very insidious pattern has been shown by the defense from these people basically acting a damn fool and positioning themselves like leeches around Jackson in order to make money. But it got even worse for prosecutors. They called someone who worked at Neverland for all of 5 weeks, Dwayne Swingler, to talk about some prosecution-alleged conspiracy. He was suppose to identify who was at the ranch with Jackson at a specific time, including Dieter Weisner and Ron Konitzer. Only the witness couldn’t identify Weisner. According to Jim Moret, when shown a picture of Weisner, the witness said he’d never seen the man before in his life. I kid you not. And if that wasn’t bad enough, under cross-examination, he admitted he was working on a book and actually said he wanted to “cash in just like everybody else”. This completely blows the entire “cumulative effect” theory out of the water. Here, you have a witness actually admitting that he wanted to make money from positioning himself in and around this trial “like everybody else”. He is a perfect example of how these people can ALL be lying for financial gain. To top it off, breaking news today from ABC news about the current accuser’s mother, Janet Arvizo, is that she is set to plead the 5th! She apparently will take back her admission to committing welfare fraud. An admission conceded by the prosecution in their opening statement. The defense seems to have dump trunk loads of ammunition against Arvizo and, according to that ABC report, the prosecution is seeking to keep the defense from bringing up her welfare fraud. For the record, this isn’t some long-past crime. She apparently was committing welfare fraud even during the time she was getting donations from various celebrities including Jackson.
APRIL 12 2005 (10:30 AM ET) — Underneath the screaming headlines recounting the 1993 accuser’s mother’s testimony, there were a few questions asked by Tom Mesereau reported by the Santa Barbara News Press that a number of media overlooked. According to the paper, Mesereau asked June Chandler whether or not she remembers asking Jackson for a $4 million dollar loan and saying that they were $5 million dollars in debt. Of course she denied it. Mesereau also asked Chandler if her attorney was “threatening to ruin Mr. Jackson’s music deals” when they filed the 1993 lawsuit against him. She claims she couldn’t recall. The paper reports Jackson had already negotiated the largest endorsement deal at the time with Pepsi. His next album, HIStory which was released after the settlement, was also his fastest selling album around the world to date and made his label hundreds of millions of dollars. So that may have been foreshadowing by Mesereau when the defense gets to put on their case. Santa Barbara News Press article: http://news.newspress.com/topsports/041205jackson.htm Stay tuned to this thread for the latest up-to-the-minute updates as we get ’em: http://forums.mjeol.com/showthread.php?t=5533