If anyone should swing by the Internet Movie Database forums then please ignore the disgusting, bitter and hatred-fueled comments from its many caucasian members regarding the late Johnny Cochran.
No matter what people think of the O.J. case he represented all his clients well.
Over the years, Cochran represented Michael Jackson, American football great Jim Brown on rape and assault charges, actor Todd Bridges on attempted murder charges, rapper Tupac Shakur on a weapons charge and rapper Snoop Dogg on a murder charge. He was also the lawyer for Reginald Denny and for a young black American police officer in Rhode Island who was wrongfully shot to death.
He also represented former Black Panther Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.
He had bravery, courage and was a prominent Black figure that will definitely be missed - ignore the racist haters.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Jackson Trial: The REAL pattern of evidence
What do we know about the witnesses Melville has allowed to testify about prior alleged offenses under the 1108 ruling?
Here's the more important question: Is there a single one who has not either made money out of their "Michael Jackson, pedophile" stories, or who has tried to make money out of it?Is there a single one?? - THAT is the question.
The bodyguards who lost that lawsuit against Michael tried to make money and ended up paying HIM damages. I believe some or all of them also made money selling their stories to tabloids. Retard Wegner has forged a career out of making lewd allegations about life at Neverland: he wrote a 'book' (using the term loosely), and has done as many tabloid TV appearances as the likes of Jack Gordon, Ernie Rizzo and Ray Chandler - the usual suspects.
June Chandler got a share of the 1994 settlement. Jason and Blanca Francia made $2 million.
Bob Jones worked for Michael for decades and never made any complaint, and the notion of any wrongdoing only came up after he was fired, when he was trying to get a lucrative book deal. Jones has, in any case, stated that someone else incorrectly attributed words to him, presumably some leach hoping to get a cut of his book revenues.
Fox News' Roger Friedman wrote his wisest words ever last week when talking about all these so-called 'corroborating' witnesses, and I paraphrase: "It says less about Michael Jackson than it does about the greed and ambition that surround him."
But HOLD ON! Am I missing anyone? Is there some noble, upstanding witness on Sneddon's list of whom I am not aware of? Someone who went straight to the police when they 'saw Michael abusing children' instead of straight to the highest bidding tabloid?
NO.
Here's the more important question: Is there a single one who has not either made money out of their "Michael Jackson, pedophile" stories, or who has tried to make money out of it?Is there a single one?? - THAT is the question.
The bodyguards who lost that lawsuit against Michael tried to make money and ended up paying HIM damages. I believe some or all of them also made money selling their stories to tabloids. Retard Wegner has forged a career out of making lewd allegations about life at Neverland: he wrote a 'book' (using the term loosely), and has done as many tabloid TV appearances as the likes of Jack Gordon, Ernie Rizzo and Ray Chandler - the usual suspects.
June Chandler got a share of the 1994 settlement. Jason and Blanca Francia made $2 million.
Bob Jones worked for Michael for decades and never made any complaint, and the notion of any wrongdoing only came up after he was fired, when he was trying to get a lucrative book deal. Jones has, in any case, stated that someone else incorrectly attributed words to him, presumably some leach hoping to get a cut of his book revenues.
Fox News' Roger Friedman wrote his wisest words ever last week when talking about all these so-called 'corroborating' witnesses, and I paraphrase: "It says less about Michael Jackson than it does about the greed and ambition that surround him."
But HOLD ON! Am I missing anyone? Is there some noble, upstanding witness on Sneddon's list of whom I am not aware of? Someone who went straight to the police when they 'saw Michael abusing children' instead of straight to the highest bidding tabloid?
NO.
More pathetic convergence from Sony
PSP wishes it was an ipaq!
Originally uploaded by darthbane2k.
If a MS Word/Excel document reader and hidden web browser in its latest firmware update wasn't enough, Sony have now undisputedly shown their true colours in the intention for their PSP. Not content with attempting to overthrow Nintendo from handheld gaming dominance and usurp Apple iPod as the chief portable music player, Sony seem to think they have a iPaq beater in their hands!
I'm sorry but as technologically impressive the PSP is, it DOES NOT and WILL NOT function competently as a PDA, in fact it looks like a desperate and pathetic attempt from Sony to bring us a 'Jack-of-all-trades' type device following the death of the Sony Clie.
Anyone can point out that this keyboard is very awkwardly placed, and therefore typing on it wouldn't be very convenient. (The USB port is on the top, so that's where the keyboard had to go.) In addition, as the PSP doesn't have a touch screen, I guess you'd have to control a cursor with the joystick. Again, not terribly convenient.
Dumb move Sony.
Are Blacks FINALLY awakening to the reality of the Michael Jackson situation?
I would like to mention comments that were heard on US radio this morning (Black talk radio). Most of the callers thought that Judge Rodney Melville was wrong on the ruling to allow past (1993) accusations in as evidence to the current trial against Michael Jackson. Many said that the current case appeared to be very weak to this point and that Melville ruled only to help the DA out of an embarrassing situation. Others felt that Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon has it in for Michael Jackson and is seeking revenge and one caller said that he remembered a chilling comment Sneddon made after the settlement in 1993 that 'the next time, Jackson won't get to pay any money out'. The talkshow host said that he remembered Sneddon saying it as well. The host, who is an attorney, said that only in California, do they have a law to allow in information on past uncharged behaviour and that the law was added because of Michael Jackson.
One caller said she hadn't heard that Michael Jackson paid out 2 settlements (at first she thought it was 3), and the host cut her off to say that celebrities do this all of the time because they rather just make ‘problems’ quickly go away. He said that perhaps Michael Jackson’s advisors told him that he couldn't keep paying out money and when he cut this current family off, they retaliated.
He mentioned the fact that ex-Jackson employees had tried to swindle money out of him, but it was them who had to pay Jackson in court and that three out of the four boys Sneddon wants to bring forth in this case said nothing ever happened and will deny all suggestions of abuse. Its noteworthy that while the media keep on dragging up Macaulay Culkin’s name as a ‘victim’ he is, in reality still a very close friend of Jackson and is actually godfather to two of his children, Prince and Paris. One other caller said what I’ve been saying all along - that it's all because of that Sony/ATV catalog.
While this radio talk show seemed encouraging, I still cannot fathom how many Blacks remain ignorant to the fact that ‘certain people’ would be downright pissed off that michael owns the rights to the Beatles catalogue as well as much of Elvis Presley’s music. Their “king”, Elvis didn't even like black people, yet Michael married his daughter and is now making money off his music, thats like a slap in the face to these people and makes Michael even more of a hero to ‘us’ in my book!
One caller said she hadn't heard that Michael Jackson paid out 2 settlements (at first she thought it was 3), and the host cut her off to say that celebrities do this all of the time because they rather just make ‘problems’ quickly go away. He said that perhaps Michael Jackson’s advisors told him that he couldn't keep paying out money and when he cut this current family off, they retaliated.
He mentioned the fact that ex-Jackson employees had tried to swindle money out of him, but it was them who had to pay Jackson in court and that three out of the four boys Sneddon wants to bring forth in this case said nothing ever happened and will deny all suggestions of abuse. Its noteworthy that while the media keep on dragging up Macaulay Culkin’s name as a ‘victim’ he is, in reality still a very close friend of Jackson and is actually godfather to two of his children, Prince and Paris. One other caller said what I’ve been saying all along - that it's all because of that Sony/ATV catalog.
While this radio talk show seemed encouraging, I still cannot fathom how many Blacks remain ignorant to the fact that ‘certain people’ would be downright pissed off that michael owns the rights to the Beatles catalogue as well as much of Elvis Presley’s music. Their “king”, Elvis didn't even like black people, yet Michael married his daughter and is now making money off his music, thats like a slap in the face to these people and makes Michael even more of a hero to ‘us’ in my book!
Fellow Black people out-there following the Michael Jackson trial, please, PLEASE beware of the final LIES of March!
They claim to have audio-taped evidence from a family who spoke to Michael in 1985 where he claims to dislike his 'nigger' hair and claims to still be a virgin at the age of 32.
Please do NOT believe anything you read in the media about this case, they cannot be trusted and there is a REASON for them wanting you, the Black people to turn against one of our greatest and most achieved idols. All of this will become clearer as the trial unfolds, but as Michael Jackson said this past Sunday live on radio to the Reverend Jesse Jackson - there is a CONSPIRACY at work against him. Think power, think wealth, think music industry and think Beatles/Sony ATV catalogue and you'll be on the right track.
Anyone with a brain can see (as I do) how what is being reported that Jackson said on these tapes is FALSE.
1) Michael did NOT have afro-hair in 1985, he had a curly perm and infact this would have been the time that he lost a lot of his hair in that Pepsi commercial accident. Hardly a time to be proclaiming how much you hate your natural hair, eh?
2) Was Michael Jackson even 32 years old in 1985 - how can this be when the man was born in 1958???!!!
They claim to have audio-taped evidence from a family who spoke to Michael in 1985 where he claims to dislike his 'nigger' hair and claims to still be a virgin at the age of 32.
Please do NOT believe anything you read in the media about this case, they cannot be trusted and there is a REASON for them wanting you, the Black people to turn against one of our greatest and most achieved idols. All of this will become clearer as the trial unfolds, but as Michael Jackson said this past Sunday live on radio to the Reverend Jesse Jackson - there is a CONSPIRACY at work against him. Think power, think wealth, think music industry and think Beatles/Sony ATV catalogue and you'll be on the right track.
Anyone with a brain can see (as I do) how what is being reported that Jackson said on these tapes is FALSE.
1) Michael did NOT have afro-hair in 1985, he had a curly perm and infact this would have been the time that he lost a lot of his hair in that Pepsi commercial accident. Hardly a time to be proclaiming how much you hate your natural hair, eh?
2) Was Michael Jackson even 32 years old in 1985 - how can this be when the man was born in 1958???!!!
Defense superstar Johnnie Cochran dies
Famed attorney Johnnie Cochran died Tuesday in California following an extended illness, a partner in his law firm said. He was 67.
Cochran, the great-grandson of a slave, grew up in a wealthy family in Los Angeles. He earned his law degree from Loyola Marymount University after getting a bachelor's degree from the University of California.
He became famous in the 1970s for his work on controversial, headline-grabbing cases in Los Angeles, taking on as a client a Black Panther accused of murder and a number of police-brutality cases.
His client list included pop singer Michael Jackson, for whom he arranged an out-of-court settlement with a boy who had accused the singer of molestation, and O. J. Simpson, Cochran argued had been framed by a racist police officer.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
I want one, I want one NOW!
sony_ericsson_k750i
Originally uploaded by darthbane2k.
The 2 MEGAPIXEL! Sony Ericsson K750i Camera Phone. Coming soon, but I want one NOW!
Read More
Nintendo touching on a revolution
Source: Gamesradar
An unnamed source from inside EA has revealed exactly how revolutionary the next Nintendo console will be by leaking details of the prototype Revolution control pad, which is devoid of face and shoulder buttons, and also lacks any analogue sticks.
In place of these traditionally crucial joypad features is a touch-screen, which can be programmed to display - and indeed use - any configuration of buttons, levers and steering devices, or anything else developers can devise and see fit to program into their game.
This could provide developers with a level of freedom never before seen when developing control schemes, decreasing limitation and offering more innovative methods for controlling games.
However, despite promising a 'pad for all occasions', it's possible the pad may not work for complex games requiring many buttons. And not being able to feel where buttons are may limit player responses in both judgement and accuracy.
But complexity for future games is definitely not Nintendo's direction according to Nintendo president Satoru Iwata.
Speaking recently with Japanese publication Nikkei Business Daily, the Nintendo boss pointed out the need for simplicity in games, in order to draw in causal gamers normally put off by the complexity of modern games.
"A goal of ours with Revolution is to expand the target market for games," said Iwata. "The current consoles are constantly getting more complicated and the number of buttons on joypads has been increasing steadily in recent years. Hardcore players can still manage, but for inexperienced players and beginners the degree of complexity is too big a barrier."
Iwata's comments regarding Revolution being a mass-market device, able to open up gaming to new audiences, echoes Nintendo's sentiment for DS, which, as we know, uses a touch-screen.
An unnamed source from inside EA has revealed exactly how revolutionary the next Nintendo console will be by leaking details of the prototype Revolution control pad, which is devoid of face and shoulder buttons, and also lacks any analogue sticks.
In place of these traditionally crucial joypad features is a touch-screen, which can be programmed to display - and indeed use - any configuration of buttons, levers and steering devices, or anything else developers can devise and see fit to program into their game.
This could provide developers with a level of freedom never before seen when developing control schemes, decreasing limitation and offering more innovative methods for controlling games.
However, despite promising a 'pad for all occasions', it's possible the pad may not work for complex games requiring many buttons. And not being able to feel where buttons are may limit player responses in both judgement and accuracy.
But complexity for future games is definitely not Nintendo's direction according to Nintendo president Satoru Iwata.
Speaking recently with Japanese publication Nikkei Business Daily, the Nintendo boss pointed out the need for simplicity in games, in order to draw in causal gamers normally put off by the complexity of modern games.
"A goal of ours with Revolution is to expand the target market for games," said Iwata. "The current consoles are constantly getting more complicated and the number of buttons on joypads has been increasing steadily in recent years. Hardcore players can still manage, but for inexperienced players and beginners the degree of complexity is too big a barrier."
Iwata's comments regarding Revolution being a mass-market device, able to open up gaming to new audiences, echoes Nintendo's sentiment for DS, which, as we know, uses a touch-screen.
The definition of Coolness!
Birth of Vader
Originally uploaded by darthbane2k.
As the title suggests, just check out this leaked still from Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - Enough said!
Monday, March 28, 2005
Transcript of Rev Jesse Jackson's Radio-interview with Michael Jackson
Source: Jesse Jackson's Radio Show Keep Hope Alive
Sunday, March 27, 2005
URGENT CALL TO MICHAEL JACKSON SUPPORTERS - DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER!
To my HORROR I saw a copy of ZOO magazine, this is a trashy UK men’s weekly magazine which is normally filled with soft pornography. What caught my attention was a feature called 52 BEST JACKO JOKES. I looked inside and to my disgust were all jokes about child abuse, molestation etc.. not only is this offensive to REAL victims of abuse but it is a blatant defamation of Michael Jackson's character which is ILLEGAL. Many of these gags consisted of pictures of MJ, pictures of children with speech bubbles and photoshop manipulation to suggest/state crudities of a sexual nature. One had a picture of a little boy in war-torn Iraq holding a photoshopped sign that said 'Safer here than with Michael Jackson'.
The jokes are far cruder and foul than that, I suggest you go to a shop to see how bad they are but DO NOT BUY THIS PUBLICATION.
We NEED to forward this to MJs legal team. I know he has other priorities now but this definitely crosses the line like no tabloid newspaper has dared to do before. THIS IS A BLATENT DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. MJS TEAM NEEDS TO SUE AND SHUT THIS MAGAZINE DOWN.
Please pass this onto the other fans and fan organisations.
Jonathan.
The jokes are far cruder and foul than that, I suggest you go to a shop to see how bad they are but DO NOT BUY THIS PUBLICATION.
We NEED to forward this to MJs legal team. I know he has other priorities now but this definitely crosses the line like no tabloid newspaper has dared to do before. THIS IS A BLATENT DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. MJS TEAM NEEDS TO SUE AND SHUT THIS MAGAZINE DOWN.
Please pass this onto the other fans and fan organisations.
Jonathan.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
UPDATE: Just got back from Odeon Leicester square to physically pick up our tickets for Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith.
I had a look at the new seating plan that will follow the Odeon's refurbishment and it turns out that our front row, rear circle seats are AWESOME! and are in the exact middle of the row meaning that we will have a fantastic view of the screen!
All's well that ends well then!
I had a look at the new seating plan that will follow the Odeon's refurbishment and it turns out that our front row, rear circle seats are AWESOME! and are in the exact middle of the row meaning that we will have a fantastic view of the screen!
All's well that ends well then!
Odeon Star Wars Episode 3 Advanced Ticket Booking - A COMPLETE SHAMBLES!
After days of hyping the beginning of advance ticket sales for Star Wars Episode 3 beginning midnight last night, the Odeon still managed to screw up a simple pre-booking process.
There I was at half-eleven looking to get a head start in securing the best seats for the traditional first midnight showing of the new Star Wars film at the grand-daddy of them all, the Odeon Leicester square. Now before you start, it HAD to be this cinema for two reasons, 1) it is the choice of the premiere, 2) it is the only cinema with a Digital Light Projector, thus equipted to show the film as George Lucas intends.
Needing to book ten seats next to one another, I contacted the Odeon Cineline - called the number, was told that no operators were working and there was no pre-booking option for starwars using their automated service - tried the same just after midnight, still no joy... GREAT!
Then after midnight I tried the Odeon's website - phew! it didnt crash! but doh!, it only displayed June dates for the film even though it opens on 19th May!!
I kept on refreshing the webpage wondering if the website had not been updated yet and one by one, every 15 mins, one of the June dates would disappear until eventually no dates were left and Episode 3 was removed from the film listings all together! - GREAT!
I went to bed, set my mobile alarm to go off by the hour so I could check the website once again, right through to the morning, nothing had changed - GREAT!
I knew that humans only begin to answer the Odeon's ticket booking line from 9am onwards, once again I called at 8.45am to get a head start. I DID get through to someone who informed me that there would be NO MIDNIGHT SCREENING even though Odeon had been bragging to the contrary for days on end.
I inquired about the 8pm opening night screening only to be told that all tickets for this film had been jacked up in terms of price by a further £4 due to a 'refurbishment' and that the Royal Circle (the best seats) were all sold out!
I promply complained, cursing the Odeon and their shambolic pre-booking system - I was told that people had queued up outside the cinema itself overnight to get first grabs and that I could speak to a manager if not happy.
I speaks to the manager and am offered 10 seats in the rear circle, just behind the royal circle balcony but we would have the front row and be seated in the middle meaning no heads in front of us! I grabbed these right away, still vexed for losing out on the royal circle but happy that second best was better than no seats at all.
So thats ten tickets at £13.85 (including booking fee) each for second-rate seats. The royal circle would have set us back a whopping £17.85! MORE THAN THE BLOODY DVD WOULD COST!!!!!
I have to take my credit card to the odeon anytime now to pick the tickets up - the Odeon website has no viewable seating plan so I booked on hazy memory and blind faith. Will check the plan once I get the tickets - FINGERS CROSSED!
Anyway, drama aside - May 19th NOT SO LONG NOW!!!!
There I was at half-eleven looking to get a head start in securing the best seats for the traditional first midnight showing of the new Star Wars film at the grand-daddy of them all, the Odeon Leicester square. Now before you start, it HAD to be this cinema for two reasons, 1) it is the choice of the premiere, 2) it is the only cinema with a Digital Light Projector, thus equipted to show the film as George Lucas intends.
Needing to book ten seats next to one another, I contacted the Odeon Cineline - called the number, was told that no operators were working and there was no pre-booking option for starwars using their automated service - tried the same just after midnight, still no joy... GREAT!
Then after midnight I tried the Odeon's website - phew! it didnt crash! but doh!, it only displayed June dates for the film even though it opens on 19th May!!
I kept on refreshing the webpage wondering if the website had not been updated yet and one by one, every 15 mins, one of the June dates would disappear until eventually no dates were left and Episode 3 was removed from the film listings all together! - GREAT!
I went to bed, set my mobile alarm to go off by the hour so I could check the website once again, right through to the morning, nothing had changed - GREAT!
I knew that humans only begin to answer the Odeon's ticket booking line from 9am onwards, once again I called at 8.45am to get a head start. I DID get through to someone who informed me that there would be NO MIDNIGHT SCREENING even though Odeon had been bragging to the contrary for days on end.
I inquired about the 8pm opening night screening only to be told that all tickets for this film had been jacked up in terms of price by a further £4 due to a 'refurbishment' and that the Royal Circle (the best seats) were all sold out!
I promply complained, cursing the Odeon and their shambolic pre-booking system - I was told that people had queued up outside the cinema itself overnight to get first grabs and that I could speak to a manager if not happy.
I speaks to the manager and am offered 10 seats in the rear circle, just behind the royal circle balcony but we would have the front row and be seated in the middle meaning no heads in front of us! I grabbed these right away, still vexed for losing out on the royal circle but happy that second best was better than no seats at all.
So thats ten tickets at £13.85 (including booking fee) each for second-rate seats. The royal circle would have set us back a whopping £17.85! MORE THAN THE BLOODY DVD WOULD COST!!!!!
I have to take my credit card to the odeon anytime now to pick the tickets up - the Odeon website has no viewable seating plan so I booked on hazy memory and blind faith. Will check the plan once I get the tickets - FINGERS CROSSED!
Anyway, drama aside - May 19th NOT SO LONG NOW!!!!
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Michael Jackson arrived early to court today.
Reports say that attorney Ron Richards, who is close to the defense team, talked about what really happened yesterday (March 21 2005) with Jackson's 2-minutes "late" arrival. And, as we thought, it was no where near as dramatic as the media hype.
Sources say Richards appeared on MSNBC this morning to discuss what happened. He says that Jackson was checked into the hospital for his back pains on Sunday night, the night before court resumed.
Richards says that Judge Melville was also contacted Sunday night, asked if the proceedings could continue and if Jackson could waive his right to be inside the courtroom until he got better. Reportedly, the judge said he didn't think the proceedings could go on without him present, but did say he would think about it and rule on it Monday morning (March 21 2005).
Richards also reported that it was Jackson himself who changed his mind and decided to come to court, bringing the independent doctor with him just incase. Jackson apparently called at around 8:21AM and told his lawyer, Tom Mesereau, that was coming in but that he was running just a few minutes late.
The judge asked Mesereau if it was possible that Jackson could sit through court all day in his condition, and Mesereau informed him that the doctor currently treating him would be in court with him to assist him medically if needed.
More importantly, the doctor is not one of Jackson's personal physicians. He also made it known that Jackson's back problem IS NOT "mental" and that it is really a physical condition.
Of course, most people with sense -- and those who have had back problems of their own -- knew this. But apparently bobble-headed commentators, pundits and other Michael journos did not.
Richards also says that Jackson was never in any danger of being taken into custody at all because the judge knew about this as early as Sunday night and was in negotiations about how to proceed.
This is most likely why the judge didn't say anything about Jackson's 2-minute tardiness and imposed no sanctions against him. Remember, to fill air time, some anchormen/women have been ranting about how Jackson's on his "third strike" and how the judge "won't tolerate it". You know, the usual drama-queen reports.
Sources say Richards appeared on MSNBC this morning to discuss what happened. He says that Jackson was checked into the hospital for his back pains on Sunday night, the night before court resumed.
Richards says that Judge Melville was also contacted Sunday night, asked if the proceedings could continue and if Jackson could waive his right to be inside the courtroom until he got better. Reportedly, the judge said he didn't think the proceedings could go on without him present, but did say he would think about it and rule on it Monday morning (March 21 2005).
Richards also reported that it was Jackson himself who changed his mind and decided to come to court, bringing the independent doctor with him just incase. Jackson apparently called at around 8:21AM and told his lawyer, Tom Mesereau, that was coming in but that he was running just a few minutes late.
The judge asked Mesereau if it was possible that Jackson could sit through court all day in his condition, and Mesereau informed him that the doctor currently treating him would be in court with him to assist him medically if needed.
More importantly, the doctor is not one of Jackson's personal physicians. He also made it known that Jackson's back problem IS NOT "mental" and that it is really a physical condition.
Of course, most people with sense -- and those who have had back problems of their own -- knew this. But apparently bobble-headed commentators, pundits and other Michael journos did not.
Richards also says that Jackson was never in any danger of being taken into custody at all because the judge knew about this as early as Sunday night and was in negotiations about how to proceed.
This is most likely why the judge didn't say anything about Jackson's 2-minute tardiness and imposed no sanctions against him. Remember, to fill air time, some anchormen/women have been ranting about how Jackson's on his "third strike" and how the judge "won't tolerate it". You know, the usual drama-queen reports.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Jackson Accuser's Poor Performance
(CBS) If prosecutors were hoping that Michael Jackson's accuser would come to the witness stand Monday and cement into place their case, they surely are disappointed, and perhaps even mortified, by the young man's courtroom demeanor and testimony. The alleged molestation victim did not talk or act like one in court. And on Monday, during the heart of the prosecution's case, no part of his story was immune from serious and substantial questions about its accuracy or reliability.
At times sullen and combative, cheeky and evasive, acting more like a punk than a crime victim, and often mumbling so badly that the court reporter had to ask him to repeat his answers, the young man did little to persuade jurors that he is telling the truth and Jackson is lying about their alleged encounters together. And it wasn't because Jackson's attorney, Thomas Mesereau, went after the complaining witness like the pit bull attorney we all know he can be. Indeed, part of the reason why Monday was such a devastating day for prosecutors is because the accuser so often during the course of the cross-examination did himself in through word and deed. Calling the young man "Mister," Mesereau was subtle and soft because he didn't have to be blunt and firm. The witness was doing his dirty work for him.
By far the most important revelation from the day's testimony is that the young man apparently told a former middle school dean of his that Jackson had not molested him. "I told him that Michael didn't do anything to me," the young man told jurors after Mesereau asked him what he had told the dean. And what had the dean said to the young man to elicit that response? Mesereau said the school official asked the young man: "Look at me, look at me. I can't help you unless you tell me the truth." Powerful stuff for the defense, especially since it appears that prosecutors were unaware of the dean's purported testimony until this past weekend.
If the dean does testify, and if he says what Mesereau says he will, that testimony alone could easily create the reasonable doubt Jackson needs to be acquitted of the charges against him. What possible incentive would the dean have to lie? Why would he want to help Jackson? Why would he want to sink the prosecution's case? And even if the young man eventually says on re-direct examination that he didn't want to level with his dean because he was embarrassed, the fact is that then he's lied to a person of authority when asked him to tell the truth about molestation -- which is exactly what this trial is all about.
If this were the only problem prosecutors faced with their most important witness, it might be enough to sink the case. But it is not. On point after point, the alleged victim came across as incredible, at worst, and just plain confused at best. During the afternoon, he even seemed to suggest that he was unclear about when the molestation took place; whether it took place before or after the family made a "rebuttal" video designed to respond to the infamous network video of Jackson at Neverland; the one in which he admitted to the world that he enjoyed sleeping in the same bed with boys not related to him. This, too, is the essence of reasonable doubt.
The timing of the alleged molestation is so important to the case that the defense Monday afternoon trotted out for a third time the rebuttal videotape. If the alleged molestation took place before this rebuttal video was made, its floridly pro-Jackson tone makes even less sense than it did last week, when jurors were told that the alleged molestation took place after the rebuttal video. But no matter when jurors are told the molestation occurred, the rebuttal video is powerful evidence for Jackson and his lawyer made great use of it with the accuser in the courtroom. Over and over again, Mesereau stopped the videotape to ask the young man if he and his family were lying or telling the truth in it. Sometimes the answer was yes; sometimes it was no.
Long hours before the rebuttal video graced the courtroom again came the first question of the day. Before jurors even got settled in their seats, Mesereau was talking about the young man's comments about masturbation. Mesereau asked the accuser why he had ascribed the same words about masturbation to both Jackson and his grandmother. In other words, the alleged victim apparently told some people that Jackson had told him that masturbation was necessary because it prevented rape while telling others that his grandmother had said that. The young man tried to explain away the inconsistency but it wasn't persuasive. And from that icky start it went downhill quickly. It got so bad, in fact, that the young man's answers to questions about his cancer made it seem like he often used the disease as a sword, not a shield, and had unrealistic and sometimes even offensive expectations about what Jackson and the rest of the world owed him.
Then there were moments where the young man's testimony simply defied belief. For example, the young man told jurors that his mother was "scared the whole time" he spent at Neverland toward the end of his relationship with Jackson. Fair enough. But he also told the jury that he never told her that he was sleeping in Jackson's bed during that whole time. How can that be? How could a mother scared about her son's relationship with Jackson either not ask where they were sleeping or not do anything about it? Mesereau repeated that line of questions several times in order to ensure that the jury understood the lack of logic. It's not an issue that breaks the case wide open against Jackson but it surely doesn't help prosecutors, either.
Jackson's attorney also focused during the day on portraying the young man as a poor student with a long history of discipline problems; a mercenary punk who was renown for talking back to his teachers and defying authority. The alleged victim told jurors that he lost respect for one of his teachers because that teacher had brought himself "down to my level." One teacher wrote about the alleged victim's "good acting skills" and the young man himself told the jury that he "wasn't that good of a kid then." Now, as the parent of most young teenagers might tell you, some of this behavior is typical. But Mesereau listed at least nine teachers who all complained in one way or another about the young man. This jury has a few teachers on it and you can bet that this testimony in particular resonates with them.
But Mesereau wasn't trying to get jurors to "tut-tut" the witness for his bad school behavior. He was trying to get them to buy into the notion that the accuser in this case is capable of deceit, of defiance in the face of authority, of not suffering fools gladly even at a tender age. In a case where the young man ought to be appear wholly as a victim, Jackson's attorney Monday may him seek more like a punk, like a tough street kid who would be more likely to torment Jackson than vice versa. None of this means that the alleged molestation didn't take place, of course, but in a case about perceptions, about who was more likely to be victimizing who, it's a big deal. Simply put, it is harder tonight for me to believe that the young man would have allowed Jackson to molest him.
Anticipating a question that surely has gone through the minds of jurors, Mesereau also focused Monday upon the idea that the young man and his family had a motive to ruin Jackson's life. Why would a young man do this? Because, Mesereau suggested with his questions, the young man and his family were chronic complainers, career gold diggers, freeloaders and grifters who turned against Jackson when he and his entourage began to withdraw their significant perks and services from them. The accuser apparently complained when the vehicle Jackson gave his family took it back to repair it. And he apparently complained that the expensive watch that Jackson had given him wasn't worth what Jackson had told him it was worth. If that is gratitude, if that is appreciation, then this right now is a close case.
It also bodes ill for prosecutors that they twice seemed surprised by defense questions. First, they apparently were taken aback by the discovery that the dean would testify that the accuser had told him that no molestation occurred. Apparently, prosecutors only questioned this dean on Saturday, two days ago, and then had to meet with the alleged victim Sunday evening to discuss the development. In a case like this, that's unacceptable footwork on the part of law enforcement officials and the District Attorneys' Office, who long ago should have talked to every single faculty member at every single school the young man has attended.
Also, the alleged victim told jurors that he had not been asked by prosecutors about Jay Leno until after the trial started, implying that prosecutors did not know that Jay Leno would play a role in this case until the defense said he would during opening statements. Leno, it now appears, will be a defense witness, called to testify that he, too, was approached by the young man and his family as part of a solicitation effort. In these circumstances, it is inexcusable that Sneddon did not know about that before trial or, if he did, that he did not discuss it with his witness. Inexcusable, but not necessarily inconsistent with some of the other dubious decisions and developments so far in the case that left Thomas Sneddon, the District Attorney, shaking his head inside court late Monday morning.
Dressed in a royal blue dress shirt with a white t-shirt underneath, the young man is short-haired and good looking with a voice that is deeper than his age suggests. But when he testifies, he talks as though he is recalling a story that he has read and not as though he is retelling his own experiences. In that sense, he seems as over-coached and scripted as he seems under-coached in other areas of his testimony. Have jurors picked up on this? I don't know. Recognizing the core of the case when they see it, many of them were furiously scribbling notes Monday. And they were as attentive as you would hope they would be, focusing in upon the young man as he answered, or didn't, the questions posed to him.
Surely, in the end, they will cut the accuser some slack on some of what he says. Being the fulcrum of a case like this surely would not be easy for a mature adult, much less a young person just beginning to understand the real world. And surely there is a lot of detail for him to remember over a long period that marks the beginning and end of his relationship with the defendant. The problem for prosecutors, however, is that there is only so much of a break the jury is likely to cut the accuser, especially when Jackson is entitled to "breaks" of his own, constitutionally-mandated breaks like the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt standard.
If I were a member of the jury tonight, I would more likely be wondering why this case was brought in the first place than I would whether or not Jackson is guilty of the charges against him. And that is a horrible calculus for prosecutors now, smack dab in the middle of their case-in-chief. Why? Because with the most dramatic parts of his presentation nearly over, and with a deck stacked with defense witnesses, if Sneddon doesn't have the jury now he likely never will.
More on Jackson's INNOCENCE!
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - In what could be a deciding moment in the sex abuse case against Michael Jackson, the singer's teenage accuser admitted yesterday that he twice told a school official that the King of Pop never molested him.
Even the prosecutor was taken by surprise by the boy's bombshell on a day in which Jackson's legal team hammered away at a series of damaging contradictions by the boy and his family.
The biggest blow came when the 15-year-old boy winced slightly and recounted a conversation he had with Dean Jeffery Alpert at his school in the spring of 2003.
"I told Dean Alpert he didn't do anything to me. I told him two times," he admitted after Jackson's lawyer, Tom Mesereau, reminded him of the meeting.
Prosecutor Tom Sneddon - who apparently learned of the boy's shocker over the weekend - tried to appear cool as the bombshell landed, but jurors' pens were flying.
Under bruising cross-examination by Mesereau, the boy revealed prosecutors hustled him to an emergency meeting Sunday night to discuss the revelation.
"[Sneddon] asked me if I remembered who Mr. Alpert was," the boy said.
The boy said he was sent to Alpert's office at John Burroughs Middle School "because I was a discipline problem."
The meeting took place after the boy had appeared nuzzling and holding hands with the singer in Martin Bashir's documentary "Living with Michael Jackson."
In a fatherly way, Alpert took the boy aside and asked whether Jackson had ever done "anything of a sexual nature" to him.
"I told him that Michael didn't do anything to me," the boy said.
"Mr. Alpert asked you twice?" Mesereau quizzed.
"Yes."
"Didn't Dean Alpert tell you 'I can't help you unless you tell me the truth ... did anything bad happen?' And your response was 'No'?" Mesereau asked.
"Yeah," the boy replied.
Jackson, dressed in an eye-popping red jacket, sat tall in his chair, chin up, index finger perched on his chin at times. After court, the pop star said, "Mesereau did a good job today."
It was one of several contradictions that Mesereau highlighted during his grilling of the young accuser.
He had a field day with the boy's school records, citing nine teachers who said he was a classroom nightmare and a list of offenses for fighting, disrupting class, refusing to obey teachers' orders and being "defiant."
"I wasn't that good a kid then," the boy admitted.
The kid's school records contradict the testimony of his sister, who stubbornly denied he had disciplinary trouble at school.
In another coup for the defense, the boy admitted that many of the glowing things he and his family said about Jackson in a 90-minute rebuttal video were actually true.
His brother and sister had claimed the family was coerced into making the video on Feb.19, 2003.
When Mesereau focused on part of the tape where the boy's mother praised Jackson saying, "He's an honest man ... a nice man," the boy replied, "Yes, he's a nice man. The things that he did was kind of dishonest. ... Yes, Michael's a nice man."
But the boy didn't give in when Mesereau asked, "Would you agree that you got very angry when you realized that Mr. Jackson was fading out of your life?"
"I never wanted to be in his family. I wasn't looking for that," the boy insisted.
The kid didn't crack, but most legal analysts in the courtroom agreed Michael Jackson's accuser lost his halo yesterday.
"It was a devastating day for the prosecution," former Colorado sex-crimes prosecutor Craig Silverman said of the 15-year-old boy's grilling by defense lawyer Tom Mesereau. "There were piles and piles of reasonable doubt today."
CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen declared, "The prosecution was caught unaware. ... This young man says 'No, he didn't molest me' to a school official. ... It's bad for the prosecution."
Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, who saw the boy's direct examination by District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his early cross-examination last week, noted indications that his key testimony was coached.
The boy was "inarticulate," mumbled and was forgetful until the last 10 minutes of his testimony, when he described the alleged molestation, she said.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Jackson's Finances - The Spin, The Lies, The REAL Reason Why!
Again, nothing makes sense in the Michael Jackson case. Even with the finances. No doubt all of you have heard (from the Tabloids no less) that MJ is apparently near bankrupcy. *Sigh* - we've been hearing this for years, yet the man STILL owns the Sony ATV catalogue, generates millions every month and still flys on private jets! LOL!!
So, riddle me this - If Michael Jackson is broke, then why does he have a 3 million dollar bail? Even the DA Tom Sneddon wanted the bail to stay because they said Michael was a BILLIONAIRE and had alot of money. And this was said last year even AFTER they did their investigation.
This is all a ploy to generate negative spin against MJ in the media and to somehow, legally reveal the state of his finances in a court of law (like that's related to molestation!)so that the REAL illusive powers-that-be who are orchastrating this entire character assasination of Michael Jackson can see where they stand as THEY want the ATV catalogue and THEY want to know when and how to strike to get it.
They CANT STAND to see a Black Man with such wealth , industry power and influence. Like every powerful Black Man who 'oversteps the mark of achievement' they try to kill him off, if not literally then certainly professionaly.
STAND BY MICHAEL JACKSON.
So, riddle me this - If Michael Jackson is broke, then why does he have a 3 million dollar bail? Even the DA Tom Sneddon wanted the bail to stay because they said Michael was a BILLIONAIRE and had alot of money. And this was said last year even AFTER they did their investigation.
This is all a ploy to generate negative spin against MJ in the media and to somehow, legally reveal the state of his finances in a court of law (like that's related to molestation!)so that the REAL illusive powers-that-be who are orchastrating this entire character assasination of Michael Jackson can see where they stand as THEY want the ATV catalogue and THEY want to know when and how to strike to get it.
They CANT STAND to see a Black Man with such wealth , industry power and influence. Like every powerful Black Man who 'oversteps the mark of achievement' they try to kill him off, if not literally then certainly professionaly.
STAND BY MICHAEL JACKSON.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Episode 3 trailer ITS HERE ITS HERE ITS HERE!
Well, I had to wake up at 5 in the morning to grab it, but "you's got to have it!"
ITS THE FREAKING SECOND TRAILER FOR STAR WARS EPISODE 3 - REVENGE OF THE SITH in glorious non-bootlegged clarity! and its BETTER THAN, urm... CHOCOLATE!
Hi-Def AVI
Quicktime
Thursday, March 10, 2005
The second Star Wars Episode 3 trailer has been leaked early! Okay, so only about 12 hours early, but early none the less.
Its about 11mb in size and is a bootleg - so expect quality compromises, but I am at work as I type this and I cannot play the Quicktime file! I have stored it on my MP3 player so I can check it out as soon as I get home. Let you know my reactions then!
Where was it leaked you ask? - Cant say im afraid!
Oh, alright then..
http://s3.youshareit.com/download.php?c5e5af4fb23310fe6ead677e3c1146e6
Its about 11mb in size and is a bootleg - so expect quality compromises, but I am at work as I type this and I cannot play the Quicktime file! I have stored it on my MP3 player so I can check it out as soon as I get home. Let you know my reactions then!
Where was it leaked you ask? - Cant say im afraid!
Oh, alright then..
http://s3.youshareit.com/download.php?c5e5af4fb23310fe6ead677e3c1146e6
This morning, just as usual, I have watched Sky News' reconstruction of yesterdays events at the Michael Jackson Trial.
The accuser's Brother, Star was under cross-examination for over half of court yesterday, and Mez caught him in numerous lies and inconsistencies.
So how much time did the reconstruction devote to that?
ZERO.
They've gone straight into the Accuser, Gavin.
Sky News' anti-Jackson bias has become all too transparent, WHAT will they do when it is announced that MJ has been found NOT GUILTY, cut to a commercial break??!!
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Circle is now Complete! - OFFICIAL Star Wars Episode 3 One-Sheet REVEALED!
The Circle is now complete! In the run up to the tomorrow's release of the full Episode 3 trailer, Lucasfilm have already unveiled the final Starwars one-sheet that will be displayed in cinemas around the world.
Once again hand drawn by Drew Struzan - this poster completes the Star Wars saga.
Check out the Revenge of the Sith One-Sheet
Check out Struzan's complete Star Wars Saga
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Just a brief extract from the transcript of yesterday's court proceedings at the Michael Jackson trial - featuring an exchange between Michael's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau and the Sister of the "accuser", Davelin.
This case continues to get exposed more and more ridiculous by the day!
MESEREAU: And you testified that Mr. Jackson took you and your brothers and some fans to Toys R Us, right?
WITNESS - GIRL: Yes.
Q. Do you know approximately when that was?
A. I don't remember when.
Q. And you did say that on the way Mr. Jackson saw some fans and picked them up, and you all went to Toys R Us together, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Jackson paid for toys for everybody, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall anybody ever complaining that they were being falsely imprisoned at Toys R Us?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall anybody complaining that they were there against their will, at Toys R Us?
No answer...
This case continues to get exposed more and more ridiculous by the day!
MESEREAU: And you testified that Mr. Jackson took you and your brothers and some fans to Toys R Us, right?
WITNESS - GIRL: Yes.
Q. Do you know approximately when that was?
A. I don't remember when.
Q. And you did say that on the way Mr. Jackson saw some fans and picked them up, and you all went to Toys R Us together, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Jackson paid for toys for everybody, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall anybody ever complaining that they were being falsely imprisoned at Toys R Us?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall anybody complaining that they were there against their will, at Toys R Us?
No answer...
Monday, March 07, 2005
Jackson Trial - Week One Summary
Looks good for the defense so far!
A short summary of the witnesses and who benefited from their testimony.
Prosecution Witnesses:
1st - Martin Bashir - Answered some basic questions for the prosecution.
Cross-Examination - Un-cooperative ( possible hiding incriminating or exonerating testimony)
Benefits - Defense ( un-cooperative to answer questions. Hiding behind the shield law
2nd - Anne Gabriel -Kite - Said Documentary was a complete PR disaster
Cross- Examination - Never Met Jackson at all.
Benefits - Defense (Never Met Jackson)
3rd - Davelin Arvizo - Her stories were contradicted when it was discovered that she told a compeletly different story to the Grand Jury
Cross -Examination - Admitted she lied about the case ( testimony questionable)
Benefits - Defense - Commited perjury, testimony destroyed, unreliable, sounds rehearsed and met with sneddon.
A short summary of the witnesses and who benefited from their testimony.
Prosecution Witnesses:
1st - Martin Bashir - Answered some basic questions for the prosecution.
Cross-Examination - Un-cooperative ( possible hiding incriminating or exonerating testimony)
Benefits - Defense ( un-cooperative to answer questions. Hiding behind the shield law
2nd - Anne Gabriel -Kite - Said Documentary was a complete PR disaster
Cross- Examination - Never Met Jackson at all.
Benefits - Defense (Never Met Jackson)
3rd - Davelin Arvizo - Her stories were contradicted when it was discovered that she told a compeletly different story to the Grand Jury
Cross -Examination - Admitted she lied about the case ( testimony questionable)
Benefits - Defense - Commited perjury, testimony destroyed, unreliable, sounds rehearsed and met with sneddon.
Did the Media Mediate Abuse Case Against Michael Jackson?
Over the past two years, much hubbub has been made regarding entertainer Michael Jackson and his propensity of having children unrelated to him sleep in his bedroom. This is not meant to be a debate as to the perceived appropriateness or inappropriateness of the practice, nor is it an examination per se of the mechanics surrounding it. This is instead a look at the role the media has played in assisting with the creation of the molestation charges for which Jackson is currently on trial.
Recalling the firestorm of negative publicity that the documentary "Living with Michael Jackson" generated in February 2003, one is almost left to wonder if the over-the-top reaction to the program was at all intentionally calculated. Of course, this is all merely speculation at this point. However, in retrospect, was the "storm" intentional?
Although the documentary was largely sympathetic towards Jackson, and many felt the pop star had been exploited by its brooding creator Martin Bashir, very little discussion went into the disingenuous tactics used by the interviewer to get Jackson to open up and speak candidly. The unexpected dark turn of the program was signaled by way of dramatic music and voiceovers by Bashir, who said he found aspects of the entertainer and his life to be "disturbing," particularly Jackson's fondness for children.
Before the program had made its westward cross over the Atlantic, the media was already abuzz over statements Jackson had made in regards to sharing his bed with children unrelated to him. As if on cue, self-described "civil rights/victim's rights advocate" Gloria Allred called a press conference, as usual, to ask Santa Barbara authorities to look into Jackson's fitness as a parent and investigate statements he made about having children in his bedroom.
Looking to capitalize on the furor that had erupted, VH-1 and ABC secured the rights to air the scandalous U.K.-produced piece for America's consumption. Thanks in large part to the likes of Allred and her cohorts, ABC, who managed to get VH-1 to hold off on broadcasting the program first, didn't need to do much by way of promotion. The publicity was already there.
That's not to say the network did nothing to promote the highly anticipated program. The day before and day of the special's broadcast, "Good Morning America" placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on Jackson's children, whether his behavior around them constituted child abuse, his finances and spending habits, and how the Bashir program could impact his music career.
On February 6, 2003, the day of the broadcast, the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office put out a release in response to what they called "widespread public interest" relating to the Bashir special. Recalling the 1993 investigation into abuse allegations against the music legend, the District Attorney stated that the Sheriff's Department would record the broadcast, and review it.
It was further stated that though Jackson's admission was disconcerting, "mental leaps of misbehavior" by the media "are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." This statement was immediately followed by a call out for any potential "victims" or "anyone who...has credible evidence" of a crime committed by Jackson.
District Attorney Thomas Sneddon was watching and so was the rest of America.
Bashir's program featured the "journalist" finding his interview of Jackson and his future accuser to be "the most disturbing moment" of the eight months he spent filming Jackson on and off. Though Jackson emphasized twice within the heavily condensed program that he allowed the cancer-survivor and his brother to have his bed while he stayed on the floor, it did absolutely nothing to quell the media onslaught.
Meanwhile, the Jackson camp struggled to derail the runaway train that was dragging the singer's name across hot coals and broken glass. Statement after statement was released to counteract the innuendo and speculation regarding Jackson and the boy in the special, but it seemed as though they were light years away from balancing out the coverage.
A 1993 affidavit of Jackson's first accuser was soon leaked to the Internet. A cast of familiar characters from that situation suddenly reappeared, Diane Dimond included. ABC's Charles Gibson asked if authorities should be talking to the boy, who was seen clutching onto Jackson's hand in the program.
Along the way came "media psychiatrist" Dr. Carole Lieberman, who lodged a complaint against Jackson with both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara County child protection agencies on February 11, 2003. Like Allred, her request to have Jackson's three young children removed from his custody following the balcony incident in Germany had been "closed" with no action taken against the superstar.
Her latest complaint included a "psychological analysis" of the Bashir documentary, which was to serve as evidence as to why Jackson should be investigated. Among several matters subjected to her psychobabble, Lieberman wrote that in her estimation, "there was an unmistakable sense that something sexual had occurred with [the boy], as evidenced by his body language and submissive demeanor towards Michael." This letter would turn out to be one among others that would launch probes into accusations of purported misconduct.
On the money side, Jackson proved to be a ratings and sweeps bonanza. The major networks subsequently sought to capitalize off the wave. ABC rebroadcast the infamous program and dedicated a special to Jackson's plastic surgeries, while FOX showed Jackson's rebuttal to the Bashir piece. NBC, who lost its bid to showcase the rebuttal, also dedicated an expanded "Dateline" to Jackson's face. CBS was the only network without a special, the interview they were to have of the singer scrapped at the last minute.
The scandal eventually subsided only to return in November 2003, when Santa Barbara law enforcement raided Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch. Within hours, it was learned that the boy included in the controversial program nine months earlier was at the center of new child molestation allegations against Jackson.
Media Mediated?
As the February 2003 events transpired with much media fanfare, Michael Jackson himself seemed to be missing in action. Jackson had been in Miami when the Bashir documentary was broadcast in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The airdates were respectively February 3 and February 6, 2003.
At the time, British reporters managed to track down the boy and his family. One media account has it that the mother of the boy in question had granted an interview with Los Angeles-based David Gardner of London's Daily Mail. During the talk, which was conducted on February 4, 2003, she lavished Jackson with praise.
It was the following day, February 5, when contact was reestablished between Jackson and the family. Prior to the broadcast of the Bashir documentary in the United States, the family was flown down to Miami to meet up with Jackson. They arrived in Florida in the early morning hours of February 6, and returned to California the following day without allegedly watching the Bashir program. Reasons as to why the reconnect and the trip were made have thus far been conflicting.
The family reportedly stayed at Neverland, with occasional periods of absence, between February 7 and March 12, 2003, their purported last day at the ranch. It was at this time that the boy and his family say Jackson molested the teenager, plied him with alcohol, and abducted, falsely imprisoned, and extorted the lot of them.
Bizarre enough? Between this time period, it is a fact that the family continued to laud Jackson and all they say he had done for them to anybody willing to listen. This, of course, was while the media was going hog wild with speculation that Jackson had already molested the kid.
In order to understand this, it must be pointed out that the segment for the Bashir documentary, which included the boy, was filmed at Neverland in November 2002. As per the current allegations, there had been nothing going on between Jackson and the boy at that point in time.
It would be interesting to know how Dr. Lieberman feels about this proclamation of abuse now, considering she helped instigate this drama. According to her "analysis" of the boy's behavior in the special, "something sexual" had already transpired between Jackson and his houseguest. Not so, the boy says.
He's instead alleging that Jackson began molesting him in the middle of the firestorm that had recalled past allegations of abuse, and while knowing that District Attorney Sneddon was once again investigating him. There's also the fact that child protection agencies in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara were looking into the matter, a criminal attorney was then on hand on Jackson's behalf, and his camp was attempting to spur the negative attention he was receiving in the press.
This is the moment that the accusing family and Santa Barbara prosecutors say Jackson figured he'd start sexually exploiting a child he was told he helped beat cancer three years earlier.
Not ones to address the obvious, the media and its talking heads focused on the extraordinary allegations being made by the boy and his family. From the moment pieces of their confusing tales of sex, booze, and videotape hit the press, it had been fairly obvious to the silenced and oft-dismissed majority that there was more than something wrong with the case, and something even worse behind the motivations of those pursing and perpetuating it.
Excuse after excuse continues to be made for the accusing family. They're poor and disenfranchised. The boy has one kidney. Mother reads the Bible and was abused, so she deserves sympathy. Though she went to a civil attorney, who she can't possibly afford, that isn't evidence that she wants Jackson's money. Even though they're dysfunctional and the mother has allegedly used her children to support her past false claims, that doesn't mean her son is lying about being molested.
Then there's the latest tactic of invoking the 1993 case when all else fails. One expert after another comes along to claim that children never lie about being molested. People who would otherwise be considered "intelligent," would parrot this misconception without giving it a second thought. How quickly, it seems, that one chooses to forget the McMartin case, where it was determined that the children in that matter were lying about their abuse.
Reminder to the media: accusations do not equal truth.
Jackson, up until the start of his media-mediated trial, hasn't been given the benefit of the doubt. In the eyes of those rambling in front of the camera and pulling the strings in the background, Michael Jackson is guilty as charged. There has never been any real questions regarding the family's motives, nor has there been inquiries as to District Attorney Sneddon's pursuance of this "case," beyond those raised by Geraldo Rivera and other voices that have intentionally been suppressed from the public.
Has anybody even asked why it is that the accuser's mother allegedly allowed her sons to go on an unsupervised dining and shopping spree with a KTTV-TV reporter in January 2004, during a time when the family was claiming to be harassed? Is anyone even aware of this trip at all, where video games and the like were reportedly purchased for the two children? What's the motivation here?
Public revelations and victories for Jackson barely receive coverage, if any, while the prosecution's theory, which has sensible observers going around in circles, gets massive exposure. Fair and balanced? Reporter objectivity?
District Attorney Sneddon and his posse have used many ways to explain their case against Jackson, yet no matter the angle, they are still marred by levels of implausibility that they have yet to shake. First, Jackson conspired and instructed his people to kidnap and send the family to Brazil to keep them from informing the press and authorities of their allegations. Then it became Jackson kidnapped and coerced the family into speaking kindly of him, so he could use their words to resuscitate his image and his finances. Or is this one and the same?
It is then, and only then, they say, that Jackson decided to molest his accuser.
The State has yet to provide an explanation as to how it is that the mother was allegedly selling her kind words about Jackson before she and her family, they now claim, were kidnapped and forced into speaking kindly of him in several statements, both recorded and written. Santa Barbara authorities also have yet to explain why it is that Jackson molested the teen during the period he's alleged to have done it, and then goes on to distance himself from the family without making an attempt to monetarily placate them against later accusations.
To quote Rivera, had this been a Jackson Michael, this case wouldn't have seen the light of day.
As for the question relating to whether this "case" and its preceding "storm" was intentionally set and pursued, that answer will undoubtedly be provided as the Jackson trial unfolds. The first week alone has revealed more than anticipated, with Jackson's defense team taking over the game and dismantling on cross-examination two key prosecution witnesses, one of who was the accuser's sister.
This resulted in a blackout on discussions of Jackson's case, typical that is, being that that has been the situation since November 2003 whenever anything comes along and dents the image the press has doggedly pushed out there of Michael Jackson.
In any event, it is only a matter of time before it is fully revealed the role the media and other interested parties have played in seeing these allegations against Michael Jackson come to fruition.
Recalling the firestorm of negative publicity that the documentary "Living with Michael Jackson" generated in February 2003, one is almost left to wonder if the over-the-top reaction to the program was at all intentionally calculated. Of course, this is all merely speculation at this point. However, in retrospect, was the "storm" intentional?
Although the documentary was largely sympathetic towards Jackson, and many felt the pop star had been exploited by its brooding creator Martin Bashir, very little discussion went into the disingenuous tactics used by the interviewer to get Jackson to open up and speak candidly. The unexpected dark turn of the program was signaled by way of dramatic music and voiceovers by Bashir, who said he found aspects of the entertainer and his life to be "disturbing," particularly Jackson's fondness for children.
Before the program had made its westward cross over the Atlantic, the media was already abuzz over statements Jackson had made in regards to sharing his bed with children unrelated to him. As if on cue, self-described "civil rights/victim's rights advocate" Gloria Allred called a press conference, as usual, to ask Santa Barbara authorities to look into Jackson's fitness as a parent and investigate statements he made about having children in his bedroom.
Looking to capitalize on the furor that had erupted, VH-1 and ABC secured the rights to air the scandalous U.K.-produced piece for America's consumption. Thanks in large part to the likes of Allred and her cohorts, ABC, who managed to get VH-1 to hold off on broadcasting the program first, didn't need to do much by way of promotion. The publicity was already there.
That's not to say the network did nothing to promote the highly anticipated program. The day before and day of the special's broadcast, "Good Morning America" placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on Jackson's children, whether his behavior around them constituted child abuse, his finances and spending habits, and how the Bashir program could impact his music career.
On February 6, 2003, the day of the broadcast, the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office put out a release in response to what they called "widespread public interest" relating to the Bashir special. Recalling the 1993 investigation into abuse allegations against the music legend, the District Attorney stated that the Sheriff's Department would record the broadcast, and review it.
It was further stated that though Jackson's admission was disconcerting, "mental leaps of misbehavior" by the media "are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." This statement was immediately followed by a call out for any potential "victims" or "anyone who...has credible evidence" of a crime committed by Jackson.
District Attorney Thomas Sneddon was watching and so was the rest of America.
Bashir's program featured the "journalist" finding his interview of Jackson and his future accuser to be "the most disturbing moment" of the eight months he spent filming Jackson on and off. Though Jackson emphasized twice within the heavily condensed program that he allowed the cancer-survivor and his brother to have his bed while he stayed on the floor, it did absolutely nothing to quell the media onslaught.
Meanwhile, the Jackson camp struggled to derail the runaway train that was dragging the singer's name across hot coals and broken glass. Statement after statement was released to counteract the innuendo and speculation regarding Jackson and the boy in the special, but it seemed as though they were light years away from balancing out the coverage.
A 1993 affidavit of Jackson's first accuser was soon leaked to the Internet. A cast of familiar characters from that situation suddenly reappeared, Diane Dimond included. ABC's Charles Gibson asked if authorities should be talking to the boy, who was seen clutching onto Jackson's hand in the program.
Along the way came "media psychiatrist" Dr. Carole Lieberman, who lodged a complaint against Jackson with both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara County child protection agencies on February 11, 2003. Like Allred, her request to have Jackson's three young children removed from his custody following the balcony incident in Germany had been "closed" with no action taken against the superstar.
Her latest complaint included a "psychological analysis" of the Bashir documentary, which was to serve as evidence as to why Jackson should be investigated. Among several matters subjected to her psychobabble, Lieberman wrote that in her estimation, "there was an unmistakable sense that something sexual had occurred with [the boy], as evidenced by his body language and submissive demeanor towards Michael." This letter would turn out to be one among others that would launch probes into accusations of purported misconduct.
On the money side, Jackson proved to be a ratings and sweeps bonanza. The major networks subsequently sought to capitalize off the wave. ABC rebroadcast the infamous program and dedicated a special to Jackson's plastic surgeries, while FOX showed Jackson's rebuttal to the Bashir piece. NBC, who lost its bid to showcase the rebuttal, also dedicated an expanded "Dateline" to Jackson's face. CBS was the only network without a special, the interview they were to have of the singer scrapped at the last minute.
The scandal eventually subsided only to return in November 2003, when Santa Barbara law enforcement raided Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch. Within hours, it was learned that the boy included in the controversial program nine months earlier was at the center of new child molestation allegations against Jackson.
Media Mediated?
As the February 2003 events transpired with much media fanfare, Michael Jackson himself seemed to be missing in action. Jackson had been in Miami when the Bashir documentary was broadcast in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The airdates were respectively February 3 and February 6, 2003.
At the time, British reporters managed to track down the boy and his family. One media account has it that the mother of the boy in question had granted an interview with Los Angeles-based David Gardner of London's Daily Mail. During the talk, which was conducted on February 4, 2003, she lavished Jackson with praise.
It was the following day, February 5, when contact was reestablished between Jackson and the family. Prior to the broadcast of the Bashir documentary in the United States, the family was flown down to Miami to meet up with Jackson. They arrived in Florida in the early morning hours of February 6, and returned to California the following day without allegedly watching the Bashir program. Reasons as to why the reconnect and the trip were made have thus far been conflicting.
The family reportedly stayed at Neverland, with occasional periods of absence, between February 7 and March 12, 2003, their purported last day at the ranch. It was at this time that the boy and his family say Jackson molested the teenager, plied him with alcohol, and abducted, falsely imprisoned, and extorted the lot of them.
Bizarre enough? Between this time period, it is a fact that the family continued to laud Jackson and all they say he had done for them to anybody willing to listen. This, of course, was while the media was going hog wild with speculation that Jackson had already molested the kid.
In order to understand this, it must be pointed out that the segment for the Bashir documentary, which included the boy, was filmed at Neverland in November 2002. As per the current allegations, there had been nothing going on between Jackson and the boy at that point in time.
It would be interesting to know how Dr. Lieberman feels about this proclamation of abuse now, considering she helped instigate this drama. According to her "analysis" of the boy's behavior in the special, "something sexual" had already transpired between Jackson and his houseguest. Not so, the boy says.
He's instead alleging that Jackson began molesting him in the middle of the firestorm that had recalled past allegations of abuse, and while knowing that District Attorney Sneddon was once again investigating him. There's also the fact that child protection agencies in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara were looking into the matter, a criminal attorney was then on hand on Jackson's behalf, and his camp was attempting to spur the negative attention he was receiving in the press.
This is the moment that the accusing family and Santa Barbara prosecutors say Jackson figured he'd start sexually exploiting a child he was told he helped beat cancer three years earlier.
Not ones to address the obvious, the media and its talking heads focused on the extraordinary allegations being made by the boy and his family. From the moment pieces of their confusing tales of sex, booze, and videotape hit the press, it had been fairly obvious to the silenced and oft-dismissed majority that there was more than something wrong with the case, and something even worse behind the motivations of those pursing and perpetuating it.
Excuse after excuse continues to be made for the accusing family. They're poor and disenfranchised. The boy has one kidney. Mother reads the Bible and was abused, so she deserves sympathy. Though she went to a civil attorney, who she can't possibly afford, that isn't evidence that she wants Jackson's money. Even though they're dysfunctional and the mother has allegedly used her children to support her past false claims, that doesn't mean her son is lying about being molested.
Then there's the latest tactic of invoking the 1993 case when all else fails. One expert after another comes along to claim that children never lie about being molested. People who would otherwise be considered "intelligent," would parrot this misconception without giving it a second thought. How quickly, it seems, that one chooses to forget the McMartin case, where it was determined that the children in that matter were lying about their abuse.
Reminder to the media: accusations do not equal truth.
Jackson, up until the start of his media-mediated trial, hasn't been given the benefit of the doubt. In the eyes of those rambling in front of the camera and pulling the strings in the background, Michael Jackson is guilty as charged. There has never been any real questions regarding the family's motives, nor has there been inquiries as to District Attorney Sneddon's pursuance of this "case," beyond those raised by Geraldo Rivera and other voices that have intentionally been suppressed from the public.
Has anybody even asked why it is that the accuser's mother allegedly allowed her sons to go on an unsupervised dining and shopping spree with a KTTV-TV reporter in January 2004, during a time when the family was claiming to be harassed? Is anyone even aware of this trip at all, where video games and the like were reportedly purchased for the two children? What's the motivation here?
Public revelations and victories for Jackson barely receive coverage, if any, while the prosecution's theory, which has sensible observers going around in circles, gets massive exposure. Fair and balanced? Reporter objectivity?
District Attorney Sneddon and his posse have used many ways to explain their case against Jackson, yet no matter the angle, they are still marred by levels of implausibility that they have yet to shake. First, Jackson conspired and instructed his people to kidnap and send the family to Brazil to keep them from informing the press and authorities of their allegations. Then it became Jackson kidnapped and coerced the family into speaking kindly of him, so he could use their words to resuscitate his image and his finances. Or is this one and the same?
It is then, and only then, they say, that Jackson decided to molest his accuser.
The State has yet to provide an explanation as to how it is that the mother was allegedly selling her kind words about Jackson before she and her family, they now claim, were kidnapped and forced into speaking kindly of him in several statements, both recorded and written. Santa Barbara authorities also have yet to explain why it is that Jackson molested the teen during the period he's alleged to have done it, and then goes on to distance himself from the family without making an attempt to monetarily placate them against later accusations.
To quote Rivera, had this been a Jackson Michael, this case wouldn't have seen the light of day.
As for the question relating to whether this "case" and its preceding "storm" was intentionally set and pursued, that answer will undoubtedly be provided as the Jackson trial unfolds. The first week alone has revealed more than anticipated, with Jackson's defense team taking over the game and dismantling on cross-examination two key prosecution witnesses, one of who was the accuser's sister.
This resulted in a blackout on discussions of Jackson's case, typical that is, being that that has been the situation since November 2003 whenever anything comes along and dents the image the press has doggedly pushed out there of Michael Jackson.
In any event, it is only a matter of time before it is fully revealed the role the media and other interested parties have played in seeing these allegations against Michael Jackson come to fruition.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
London Star Wars MARATHON May 16th! (Yes that INCLUDES Episode 3!!)
Great news of a UK Star Wars event on May 16th, which involves 3 London cinemas and incorporates the UK premiere of 'Revenge of the Sith':
20th Century Fox are planning a major Star Wars event that will take place in London on May 16th.
Three cinemas in London's Leicester Square will screen the previous five Star Wars movies to the public. If that wasn't good enough, 1 hour after the premiere of Episode III starts at the Odeon Leicester Square, all those aforementioned cinemas will then screen Episode III to the public! There will also be appearances during the day by Star Wars talent in Leicester Square.
The cinemas showing the movies are (timings tbc):
Vue West End Screen 1 - Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Odeon West End 2 - Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Odeon West End 1 - Episode IV: A New Hope
Empire Leicester Square - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Vue West End Screen 2 - Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
Odeon Leicester Square - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (7.30pm)
Vue West End Screen 1 - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (8.30pm)
Odeon West End 1 - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (8.30pm)
Empire Leicester Square - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (8.30pm)
They plan to allow fans to buy a special ticket, which will enable them to see all 5 movies in a row at the 3 cinemas (5 different cinema screens). They also plan to have individual tickets, as the 3 cinemas will be showing their chosen Star Wars movie all day.
20th Century Fox are planning a major Star Wars event that will take place in London on May 16th.
Three cinemas in London's Leicester Square will screen the previous five Star Wars movies to the public. If that wasn't good enough, 1 hour after the premiere of Episode III starts at the Odeon Leicester Square, all those aforementioned cinemas will then screen Episode III to the public! There will also be appearances during the day by Star Wars talent in Leicester Square.
The cinemas showing the movies are (timings tbc):
Vue West End Screen 1 - Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Odeon West End 2 - Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Odeon West End 1 - Episode IV: A New Hope
Empire Leicester Square - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Vue West End Screen 2 - Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
Odeon Leicester Square - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (7.30pm)
Vue West End Screen 1 - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (8.30pm)
Odeon West End 1 - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (8.30pm)
Empire Leicester Square - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (8.30pm)
They plan to allow fans to buy a special ticket, which will enable them to see all 5 movies in a row at the 3 cinemas (5 different cinema screens). They also plan to have individual tickets, as the 3 cinemas will be showing their chosen Star Wars movie all day.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Jackson's Ex-Wife flogs wedding ring on E-bay!
Debbie Rowe, ex-wife to Michael Jackson and mother to his two children Prince and Paris, has actually put her wedding ring for auction on e-bay!
The ring was put on sale at a starting bid of $50,000 and at the time of writing this, its current price was $61,300.00 with the reserve price still not met!
Debbie describes the item as follows:
This is the only wedding ring purchased by the King of Pop, given to Debbie Rowe on their wedding day, November 15th, 1996 in Sydney, Australia. This beautiful ring was given to Debbie and she would love someone to have it who appreciates the beauty and intention in which it was given.
This ring features a round brilliant cut diamond set in four prongs accented by fourteen round brilliant cut diamonds, five are set in in 3 prong heads and the rest are bead set. There are four tapered baguette diamonds set in two prong heads.
The ring is stamped "PT900" (Platinum),and weighs 6.77 grams.
What is even more interesting is that Debbie is actually taking the time to answer all questions/queries personally! Can you imagine the number of irrate Michael Jackson fans and Tabloid scum who are probably trying to contact her!!
This is a legit auction folks! Click Here to check it out before its too late!
So the biggest piece of "incriminating" evidence prosecutors showed yesterday to the jury at the Michael Jackson trial were videotapes of toys, dolls and movie memorabilia within his quarters.
The Mirror have lead the story with pictures and the seedy headline “Jacko’s Lair” and the Daily Star have actually risked themselves a lawsuit and blatantly called Michael Jackson “Pervy” on their frontpage.
Oh dear! highly 'disturbing' - with possession of dodgy items like these, known to you and I as TOYS, anyone would think that Michael Jackson had three children of his own or something!
The Mirror have lead the story with pictures and the seedy headline “Jacko’s Lair” and the Daily Star have actually risked themselves a lawsuit and blatantly called Michael Jackson “Pervy” on their frontpage.
Oh dear! highly 'disturbing' - with possession of dodgy items like these, known to you and I as TOYS, anyone would think that Michael Jackson had three children of his own or something!
2002 - Michael Jackson publicy exposes Sony for what it is...
During this time Tommy Motolla who is generally known to be an egotist stays relatively quiet... a little unusualy in itself considering the size of this mans head...
There are some articles sayinig that he told an insider he is going to bring up 1993 again.
Around that time, Michael gets a whole new team of people who will help 'rebuild' his career.
Keep in mind Tommy Motolla never really got his revenge.
Then Martin Bashir happens...
Everyone is talking about this kid in the interview... this is Sony's chance to pounce... even though Motolla has departed, this is their time for revenge and with Motolla gone no one would expect it. This is the best time to fuck up michael's public image, in effect reducing his money making capabilities and forcing him to sell The ATV catalogue.
Sony contacted the mother, they are behind this, this is where she is getting her pay cheques from, this is why DA Sneddon is confident she won't file a civil suit. Sony is behind these allegations . They want the catalogue, this is the best way to bankrupt him, the best way to force him to sell.
Mother - Gets money from Sony for going through with this.
Prosecutor Sneddon - Gets Michael
Sony are the biggest beneficiaries they get the Sony/ATV catalogue.
During this time Tommy Motolla who is generally known to be an egotist stays relatively quiet... a little unusualy in itself considering the size of this mans head...
There are some articles sayinig that he told an insider he is going to bring up 1993 again.
Around that time, Michael gets a whole new team of people who will help 'rebuild' his career.
Keep in mind Tommy Motolla never really got his revenge.
Then Martin Bashir happens...
Everyone is talking about this kid in the interview... this is Sony's chance to pounce... even though Motolla has departed, this is their time for revenge and with Motolla gone no one would expect it. This is the best time to fuck up michael's public image, in effect reducing his money making capabilities and forcing him to sell The ATV catalogue.
Sony contacted the mother, they are behind this, this is where she is getting her pay cheques from, this is why DA Sneddon is confident she won't file a civil suit. Sony is behind these allegations . They want the catalogue, this is the best way to bankrupt him, the best way to force him to sell.
Mother - Gets money from Sony for going through with this.
Prosecutor Sneddon - Gets Michael
Sony are the biggest beneficiaries they get the Sony/ATV catalogue.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
The REAL REASON behind the case against Michael Jackson
The following article reveals what I have been saying all along, that the current and all previously 'unfounded' cases against King of Pop, Michael Jackson are to do with race, money, power and the music industry. To put it bluntly, "they" cannot accept a Black Man owning the Beatles' music. To "them" that is the greatest insult.
Read on...
Witness claims intrigue over Jackson catalogue deal with Sony
Source: LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
Michael Jackson's infamous relationship with Sony Music became a subtext for testimony at his molestation trial Wednesday, with suggestions by a witness that associates were plotting behind his back to wrest away his co-ownership of a valuable song catalogue that includes the music of the Beatles.
The unexpected testimony came from Ann Kite, who was hired briefly in 2003 to work on public relations damage control after the airing of a documentary in which Jackson said he let boys sleep in his bedroom.
She suggested that some of the men charged as unindicted co-conspirators in the molestation case were actually enemies of Jackson's interests who were planted in his inner circle to bring about his downfall.
The issue of the catalogue came up during cross-examination of Kite by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr.
Drawing on Kite's previous statements to police he suggested there was a backstairs intrigue going on among Jackson's "team."
"You told the police that you thought Michael Jackson was being slammed by the team?" asked Mesereau.
"Yes," she said.
"And your opinion was this team was not out to help Michael Jackson?" asked the lawyer.
"That was my opinion," she said.
Jackson's stake in Sony/ATV, which includes catalogues for the Beatles and many Elvis Presley songs, was estimated by Forbes magazine several years ago to be worth at least $350 million. Jackson bought ATV in 1985 for about $47.5 million and sold it to Sony for about $95 million in 1995, but retained a half interest.
Kite, who said she only lasted on the job for Jackson for six days and never met the pop superstar, said she tried in that short time to shift the attention of his associates to crisis management but to no avail.
"Michael was going to get skewered on national TV and there was no plan of action to protect his interests from scurrilous allegations," she said.
Kite said she believed she had Jackson's public relations interest at heart more than adviser Ronald Konitzer, his partner, Dieter Wiesner, and Stuart Backerman, who was then Jackson's official spokesman. She also named unindicted co-conspirator Marc Schaffel as a key figure working against Jackson.
"You said that Mr. Konitzer was hired to isolate Michael Jackson and let him create his downfall so that Sony could get the catalogue back, isn't that correct?" asked Mesereau.
"Not in those words," said the witness.
But she said she was aware of the importance of Jackson's interest in Sony and understood that he owned the rights to many major songs including those by the Beatles.
"I knew that Mr. Jackson had spoken out vigorously against record labels and still had a contract with Sony," she said.
Mesereau asked if she had told police that "Sony was waiting for the opportunity to get the Sony catalogue back."
"That's correct," she said.
In 2002, Jackson launched a public feud with then-Sony Music chief Tommy Mottola. Jackson, following poor sales and alleged lack of promotion of the album "Invincible," accused Mottola of being a racist, saying he was "mean, he's a racist, and he's very, very devilish." Several black industry executives spoke in Mottola's defense (typical sellouts who are only interested in money) and Sony called his statements "ludicrous spiteful and hurtful."
Read on...
Witness claims intrigue over Jackson catalogue deal with Sony
Source: LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent
Michael Jackson's infamous relationship with Sony Music became a subtext for testimony at his molestation trial Wednesday, with suggestions by a witness that associates were plotting behind his back to wrest away his co-ownership of a valuable song catalogue that includes the music of the Beatles.
The unexpected testimony came from Ann Kite, who was hired briefly in 2003 to work on public relations damage control after the airing of a documentary in which Jackson said he let boys sleep in his bedroom.
She suggested that some of the men charged as unindicted co-conspirators in the molestation case were actually enemies of Jackson's interests who were planted in his inner circle to bring about his downfall.
The issue of the catalogue came up during cross-examination of Kite by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr.
Drawing on Kite's previous statements to police he suggested there was a backstairs intrigue going on among Jackson's "team."
"You told the police that you thought Michael Jackson was being slammed by the team?" asked Mesereau.
"Yes," she said.
"And your opinion was this team was not out to help Michael Jackson?" asked the lawyer.
"That was my opinion," she said.
Jackson's stake in Sony/ATV, which includes catalogues for the Beatles and many Elvis Presley songs, was estimated by Forbes magazine several years ago to be worth at least $350 million. Jackson bought ATV in 1985 for about $47.5 million and sold it to Sony for about $95 million in 1995, but retained a half interest.
Kite, who said she only lasted on the job for Jackson for six days and never met the pop superstar, said she tried in that short time to shift the attention of his associates to crisis management but to no avail.
"Michael was going to get skewered on national TV and there was no plan of action to protect his interests from scurrilous allegations," she said.
Kite said she believed she had Jackson's public relations interest at heart more than adviser Ronald Konitzer, his partner, Dieter Wiesner, and Stuart Backerman, who was then Jackson's official spokesman. She also named unindicted co-conspirator Marc Schaffel as a key figure working against Jackson.
"You said that Mr. Konitzer was hired to isolate Michael Jackson and let him create his downfall so that Sony could get the catalogue back, isn't that correct?" asked Mesereau.
"Not in those words," said the witness.
But she said she was aware of the importance of Jackson's interest in Sony and understood that he owned the rights to many major songs including those by the Beatles.
"I knew that Mr. Jackson had spoken out vigorously against record labels and still had a contract with Sony," she said.
Mesereau asked if she had told police that "Sony was waiting for the opportunity to get the Sony catalogue back."
"That's correct," she said.
In 2002, Jackson launched a public feud with then-Sony Music chief Tommy Mottola. Jackson, following poor sales and alleged lack of promotion of the album "Invincible," accused Mottola of being a racist, saying he was "mean, he's a racist, and he's very, very devilish." Several black industry executives spoke in Mottola's defense (typical sellouts who are only interested in money) and Sony called his statements "ludicrous spiteful and hurtful."
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Martin Bashir to be found in contempt of court!
In the reconstruction of yesterday's courtroom action, a few minutes were devoted to a line of questioning by Michael Jackson’s defence lawyer, Thomas Mesereau that I didn't see reported anywhere.
Mesereau asked ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ journalist/Documentry-maker Martin Bashir: "To obtain Michael Jackson's statement that nothing sexual ever happens in his bedroom, with children did you tell him that his relationship with children makes you weep" (Comments which Jackson’s own cameras picked up and used in a rebuttal documentry).
Boutros (ABC / Bashir’s lawyer) objected, Judge Melville overruled the objection and gestured to Bashir to answer the question, Bashir refused.
Mesereau then asked Bashir essetially the same question a few more times, changing only the flattery that Bashir applied to Michael: "To obtain Michael Jackson's statement that nothing sexual ever happens in his bedroom, with children did you tell him that x y z" Each time, Melville overruled Bashir's lawyer's objection but Bashir refused to answer.
Does anyone get what Mesereau's strategy is here?
And who else is looking forward to Bashir's next visit to the courtroom, during which he will have the options:
1. Answer the questions now
2. Get thrown in jail and then answer the questions
The defence are dominating this trial – HARDCORE!
Mesereau asked ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ journalist/Documentry-maker Martin Bashir: "To obtain Michael Jackson's statement that nothing sexual ever happens in his bedroom, with children did you tell him that his relationship with children makes you weep" (Comments which Jackson’s own cameras picked up and used in a rebuttal documentry).
Boutros (ABC / Bashir’s lawyer) objected, Judge Melville overruled the objection and gestured to Bashir to answer the question, Bashir refused.
Mesereau then asked Bashir essetially the same question a few more times, changing only the flattery that Bashir applied to Michael: "To obtain Michael Jackson's statement that nothing sexual ever happens in his bedroom, with children did you tell him that x y z" Each time, Melville overruled Bashir's lawyer's objection but Bashir refused to answer.
Does anyone get what Mesereau's strategy is here?
And who else is looking forward to Bashir's next visit to the courtroom, during which he will have the options:
1. Answer the questions now
2. Get thrown in jail and then answer the questions
The defence are dominating this trial – HARDCORE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)