Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) claimed yesterday, during her stand up routine in the Michael Jackson trial, that "Neverland is all about booze, pornography and sex with boys,"..
If that is the case, why on earth did she stay there so long with her family?
Also why did she happily "rack up" such a large bill, at Michael Jackson's expense, whilst allegedly being "held captive"?
It is reported that among her "incidentals" were the following:
-$131 for dinner at the Outback Steak House
-$415 at Banana Republic
-$127 at Wilson's House of Leather
-$175 for dinner at the Tony Black Angus steak restaurant
-$51 for a manicure
-$26 for dinner at Johnny Rockets (rather modest I think)
Some captivity!
Some mother!
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Here's Janet
Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) made another "spirited", and "emotional", performance in the witness stand at Michael Jackson's trial yesterday.
This time, to add credibility to her testimony and character, she admitted lying under oath twice in an unrelated case.
Tom Mesereau for the defence "went to town" on her, insinuating that she was a con artists; for her part Janet obliged all and sundry by giving long winded rambling answers, that had little to do with the case in hand.
What are the prosecution thinking of using this person in their case?
Mesereau went to work on her $150K action against JC Penney, where the Arvizos received that amount after claiming that they were manhandled by security guards.
Mesereau pointed out that Janet had sworn that she had never been abused by her husband at the time. Quote:
"You were not telling the truth under oath when you made those statements,".
Answer:
"This is correct,".
She also admitted being untruthful, when she said in the lawsuit that her husband was honest.
Janet also stated, in relation to the rebuttal video, that she had given a poor performance. Mesereau contradicted her saying:
"I think you're a good one."
Judge Rodney Melville gave him a slapped wrist for this.
Janet then went on to say that everything on the video, even breaks where Gavin complains about his seat and the family laughs at jokes, was scripted by Jackson aides.
She said that met with one of Jackson's lackeys 10 times at Neverland, to discuss what she would say on the video. Mesereau noted that this was the first time this piece of information had come up.
As a witness she is a disaster area. That of course does not mean that the abuse did not take place.
This time, to add credibility to her testimony and character, she admitted lying under oath twice in an unrelated case.
Tom Mesereau for the defence "went to town" on her, insinuating that she was a con artists; for her part Janet obliged all and sundry by giving long winded rambling answers, that had little to do with the case in hand.
What are the prosecution thinking of using this person in their case?
Mesereau went to work on her $150K action against JC Penney, where the Arvizos received that amount after claiming that they were manhandled by security guards.
Mesereau pointed out that Janet had sworn that she had never been abused by her husband at the time. Quote:
"You were not telling the truth under oath when you made those statements,".
Answer:
"This is correct,".
She also admitted being untruthful, when she said in the lawsuit that her husband was honest.
Janet also stated, in relation to the rebuttal video, that she had given a poor performance. Mesereau contradicted her saying:
"I think you're a good one."
Judge Rodney Melville gave him a slapped wrist for this.
Janet then went on to say that everything on the video, even breaks where Gavin complains about his seat and the family laughs at jokes, was scripted by Jackson aides.
She said that met with one of Jackson's lackeys 10 times at Neverland, to discuss what she would say on the video. Mesereau noted that this was the first time this piece of information had come up.
As a witness she is a disaster area. That of course does not mean that the abuse did not take place.
Through The Keyhole
The jury in the Michael Jackson trial were treated to another video of the inside of one of the protagonists homes. This time it was not the unrestrained/decadent opulence of Neverland, but the more humble interior of Janet Jackson's (nee Arvizo's) apartment in East LA.
The footage was shot by a private investigator, Bradley Miller, who worked for Michael Jackson; it was found in the investigator's office.
Seemingly the video was made in February 2003, whilst the Arvizos were allegedly being held captive at Neverland.
Why on earth would Jackson want to video the inside of their apartment?
Part of the video showed men cleaning out, and removing, furniture from the Arvizo's apartment. "Cucarachas," one of the men remarked, apparently referring to an insect problem.
The prosecution believe that the Jackson associates took the Arvizo's items, and kept them after the family left Neverland.
This case gets more bizarre, day by day.
The footage was shot by a private investigator, Bradley Miller, who worked for Michael Jackson; it was found in the investigator's office.
Seemingly the video was made in February 2003, whilst the Arvizos were allegedly being held captive at Neverland.
Why on earth would Jackson want to video the inside of their apartment?
Part of the video showed men cleaning out, and removing, furniture from the Arvizo's apartment. "Cucarachas," one of the men remarked, apparently referring to an insect problem.
The prosecution believe that the Jackson associates took the Arvizo's items, and kept them after the family left Neverland.
This case gets more bizarre, day by day.
Friday, April 15, 2005
The Joke's On You
Michael Jackson's trial is providing a veritable smorgasbord of delicacies for late night show hosts Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien and others.
The very essence of humour is that it feeds on the discomfiture of others. The fact that the trial has brought into the public arena the base nature of the human condition viz; greed, lust, dishonesty, perversion and vanity is all the better from the perspective of the comedian and sketch writer.
Jay Leno had been briefly prevented from telling jokes on his show, as he is a witness, therefore he used substitutes to tell the jokes for him; thus, in effect, making a mockery of the legal system.
The show will go on, and so will the rountines lampooning the trial.
The very essence of humour is that it feeds on the discomfiture of others. The fact that the trial has brought into the public arena the base nature of the human condition viz; greed, lust, dishonesty, perversion and vanity is all the better from the perspective of the comedian and sketch writer.
Jay Leno had been briefly prevented from telling jokes on his show, as he is a witness, therefore he used substitutes to tell the jokes for him; thus, in effect, making a mockery of the legal system.
The show will go on, and so will the rountines lampooning the trial.
The Prisoner
As Michael Jackson's trial progresses the tales spun by some witnesses become ever more fanciful, and "fantastic".
Yesterday Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) returned to the witness stand, she was a little more controlled than her first appearance on Wednesday; that histrionic performance won her no friends on the jury.
I do really wonder what the prosecution were thinking of, when they decided to use her as a witness for their case.
Maybe they had forgotten to medicate her on Wednesday?
Janet Jackson (JJ to save confusion) claimed that she and her family had been imprisoned by Jackson's henchman, and told that "killers" were after her.
JJ said that over several weeks she and others were moved around, and made to feel like prisoners. In rather a telling admission, she said that she had not gone to the police because "who would possibly believe" what she was saying.
Wise words indeed Mrs J!
In the rebuttal video made by the Arvizos, she praised Jackson. However, according to her, this had been scripted; such lines as "he's a wonderful father. Basically, in summary, that he's a wonderful father ... to my children" were not her own.
She was asked if she believed what she was saying in the video, and replied:
"I was confused, I was sad, so basically I was acting."
She did burst into tears once, when the prosecution showed her four passports belonging to her and her children. Seemingly these had been forcibly obtained for an alleged trip to Brazil.
JJ said that everything that she did between 21 February to 10 March 2003 was done under dictat. Jackson's aides would monitor her calls, stand outside her window or her hotel door and would not let her leave their custody.
Quote:
"All along this period, I'm trying to reach people to help me because it's evolving into more and more escalation,".
During this "imprisonment" JJ said that they also found time to go shopping for clothes, went to the Laugh Factory club, to a hotel and returned to Neverland.
Call me sceptical, but it's a funny kind of imprisonment where you are allowed out to go shopping etc.
Yesterday Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) returned to the witness stand, she was a little more controlled than her first appearance on Wednesday; that histrionic performance won her no friends on the jury.
I do really wonder what the prosecution were thinking of, when they decided to use her as a witness for their case.
Maybe they had forgotten to medicate her on Wednesday?
Janet Jackson (JJ to save confusion) claimed that she and her family had been imprisoned by Jackson's henchman, and told that "killers" were after her.
JJ said that over several weeks she and others were moved around, and made to feel like prisoners. In rather a telling admission, she said that she had not gone to the police because "who would possibly believe" what she was saying.
Wise words indeed Mrs J!
In the rebuttal video made by the Arvizos, she praised Jackson. However, according to her, this had been scripted; such lines as "he's a wonderful father. Basically, in summary, that he's a wonderful father ... to my children" were not her own.
She was asked if she believed what she was saying in the video, and replied:
"I was confused, I was sad, so basically I was acting."
She did burst into tears once, when the prosecution showed her four passports belonging to her and her children. Seemingly these had been forcibly obtained for an alleged trip to Brazil.
JJ said that everything that she did between 21 February to 10 March 2003 was done under dictat. Jackson's aides would monitor her calls, stand outside her window or her hotel door and would not let her leave their custody.
Quote:
"All along this period, I'm trying to reach people to help me because it's evolving into more and more escalation,".
During this "imprisonment" JJ said that they also found time to go shopping for clothes, went to the Laugh Factory club, to a hotel and returned to Neverland.
Call me sceptical, but it's a funny kind of imprisonment where you are allowed out to go shopping etc.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
A Lick and a Promise
Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) took the stand in the Michael Jackson trial yesterday.
She made a fair stab at seeming to be emotional, begging the jury "Please don't judge me,".
She told them that she once saw Jackson lick Gavin's forehead, like a cat. However, despite this rather obvious sign that something was amiss, she still allowed him to sleep in Jackson's bedroom.
Quote:
"I had not slept for so long..Like this, over and over,"
She added:
"I thought it was me. I thought I was seeing things. Everybody was asleep,".
One must conclude that she is either stupid or lying.
She then got her dander up, and railed against Jackson's aides, Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Wiesner; "those Germans who were following me everywhere."
Mrs Jackson said that she said she was unaware that he had been filmed at Neverland for a documentary about Jackson. She claimed that she had never personally spoken to Jackson until he called her in February 2003, to say her children's lives were in danger.
Quote:
"He spoke in a normal, male voice..He told me to trust him and believe him."
Jackson said that Jackson asked her to fly with her children to Miami, to participate in a press conference that would rebut the Bashir documentary "Living with Michael Jackson.".
Mrs Jackson then likened herself to a sponge:
"I was just like a sponge. Believing him. Trusting him..He said he would protect us from these killers. He said he was more than a father figure to my children."
They went to Miami, but there was no press conference or explanations, she said.
Quote:
"When I started to ask questions, that's when a lot of the craziness happened,".
Big Mike, Jackson's head of security, told her that she could join Jackson and her children on his private plane if she kept quiet.
It seems that the jury regarded the testimony as a pile of BS. Undoubtedly they were put off by Mrs Jackson "emotional" style of presentation; I thought lawyers these days schooled their witnesses before they took the stand?
She said she begged a Spanish-speaking house manager to borrow the Rolls Royce to take her and her children home to Los Angeles; then, for reasons that are not at all clear, she returned to Neverland.
Tom Mesereau, for the defence, very wisely allowed the rambling and delusional testimony to go unchallenged. Evidently Mrs Jackson was determined to commit "plausibility suicide", and Mesereau for one was not going to stand in her way.
She did at least manage to keep her mouth shut about one aspect of her life, namely welfare fraud.
Mrs Jackson decided, wisely, that she would expose herself to prosecution on this matter if she spoke about it; therefore she took the Fifth.
I suspect that the prosecution must be wishing that she took the Fifth for the entire testimony.
It's never like this in "The Practice".
She made a fair stab at seeming to be emotional, begging the jury "Please don't judge me,".
She told them that she once saw Jackson lick Gavin's forehead, like a cat. However, despite this rather obvious sign that something was amiss, she still allowed him to sleep in Jackson's bedroom.
Quote:
"I had not slept for so long..Like this, over and over,"
She added:
"I thought it was me. I thought I was seeing things. Everybody was asleep,".
One must conclude that she is either stupid or lying.
She then got her dander up, and railed against Jackson's aides, Ronald Konitzer and Dieter Wiesner; "those Germans who were following me everywhere."
Mrs Jackson said that she said she was unaware that he had been filmed at Neverland for a documentary about Jackson. She claimed that she had never personally spoken to Jackson until he called her in February 2003, to say her children's lives were in danger.
Quote:
"He spoke in a normal, male voice..He told me to trust him and believe him."
Jackson said that Jackson asked her to fly with her children to Miami, to participate in a press conference that would rebut the Bashir documentary "Living with Michael Jackson.".
Mrs Jackson then likened herself to a sponge:
"I was just like a sponge. Believing him. Trusting him..He said he would protect us from these killers. He said he was more than a father figure to my children."
They went to Miami, but there was no press conference or explanations, she said.
Quote:
"When I started to ask questions, that's when a lot of the craziness happened,".
Big Mike, Jackson's head of security, told her that she could join Jackson and her children on his private plane if she kept quiet.
It seems that the jury regarded the testimony as a pile of BS. Undoubtedly they were put off by Mrs Jackson "emotional" style of presentation; I thought lawyers these days schooled their witnesses before they took the stand?
She said she begged a Spanish-speaking house manager to borrow the Rolls Royce to take her and her children home to Los Angeles; then, for reasons that are not at all clear, she returned to Neverland.
Tom Mesereau, for the defence, very wisely allowed the rambling and delusional testimony to go unchallenged. Evidently Mrs Jackson was determined to commit "plausibility suicide", and Mesereau for one was not going to stand in her way.
She did at least manage to keep her mouth shut about one aspect of her life, namely welfare fraud.
Mrs Jackson decided, wisely, that she would expose herself to prosecution on this matter if she spoke about it; therefore she took the Fifth.
I suspect that the prosecution must be wishing that she took the Fifth for the entire testimony.
It's never like this in "The Practice".
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Janet Jackson May Not Testify
It seems that Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) may not testify, after all, at Michael Jackson's trial.
It is reported that Janet sees potential legal problems if she testifies.
No kidding!
The prosecution have filed a motion that the defence be disbarred from asking Janet any questions about welfare fraud.
This trial could certainly not have dredged up a more unpleasant and odious bunch of people if it had tried. The stench of greed and lies is positively nauseating.
Tom Sneddon has told jurors that Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) "obtained welfare funds when she wasn't entitled to them. She's going to tell you that, and she's going to admit that."
In other words, she is a thief and liar.
Janet, fearing no doubt that the welfare services might jump on her from a great height, is thinking of pleading the Fifth Amendment. Needless to say, this would fatally hole her testimony below the water line.
Whilst she is not relevant to the case about molestation, she is relevant to the conspiracy charges against five unindicted Jackson associates.
Whoever eventually wins this sorry and sordid little example of the failings of humanity, it will not be the human race.
It is reported that Janet sees potential legal problems if she testifies.
No kidding!
The prosecution have filed a motion that the defence be disbarred from asking Janet any questions about welfare fraud.
This trial could certainly not have dredged up a more unpleasant and odious bunch of people if it had tried. The stench of greed and lies is positively nauseating.
Tom Sneddon has told jurors that Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) "obtained welfare funds when she wasn't entitled to them. She's going to tell you that, and she's going to admit that."
In other words, she is a thief and liar.
Janet, fearing no doubt that the welfare services might jump on her from a great height, is thinking of pleading the Fifth Amendment. Needless to say, this would fatally hole her testimony below the water line.
Whilst she is not relevant to the case about molestation, she is relevant to the conspiracy charges against five unindicted Jackson associates.
Whoever eventually wins this sorry and sordid little example of the failings of humanity, it will not be the human race.
The Price of Rebuttal
Gavin Arvizo's stepfather, coincidentally named Jackson, took the stand in Michael Jackson's trial yesterday.
He told the jury that Gavin, during the time he was with Jackson, became rude and distant; taking several months to return to normal after 2003.
Jackson (not Michael) said that Gavin had been "brainwashed,"; this remark was, not surprisingly, contested by the defence and was stricken from the records.
He said that the Arvizo family were offered a new house and free college educations, in exchange for appearing in a video refuting the Bashir TV documentary.
The defence pointed out that Jackson had declined the offer, in the hope that he could milk even more out of Michael Jackson.
Jackson, the stepfather, is a major in the U.S. Army Reserve; he stated that he believed that the offer was insufficient, because he believed that Jackson would earn $4M-$5M from selling his rebuttal.
Ah the sweet smell of money and greed, pass the sick bag!
Then for good measure he admitted asking reporters from a British tabloid for money for an interview, seemingly he believed that "it was the standard in the industry."
Following on from this demand, he then seemingly had a change of heart; and claimed that he rejected an offer of $15K.
Quote:
"The more I thought about it, the less I liked it...It just wasn't going to be an appropriate thing to do with this family."
Jackson (the stepfather) said that after the Bashir documentary and associate of MJ, Frank Tyson, called Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) repeatedly; sometimes up to every 15 minutes, they wanted the Arvizos to appear in a rebuttal video.
Jackson said that Janet was "distressed" by the calls.
At that time Jackson (the stepfather) was not married to Janet, but living with her on an ad hoc basis. Seemingly Tyson told him that the Arvizos could get a new house and free college educations for Gavin, his brother and sister.
Jackson (the stepfather) was not happy with the offer, he believed that MJ was "taking advantage" of the family.
Quote:
"I asked what he was offering financially or monetarily,".
Tyson interpreted this as a blackmail attempt, and allegedly pointed out that "we're offering them protection,".
Eventually Janet agreed to participate in the rebuttal video. In this, she and Gavin, along with his brother and sister, praise M Jackson and deny anything improper happened. However, the children now all testify that the video was scripted and they were coached on what to say.
Tyson has been named, along with four other Jackson associates, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment against M Jackson in April 2004. The indictment alleges that Jackson and the five conspired to intimidate and coerce the Arvizos into participating in damage control after the documentary, including holding them against their will in the weeks after it aired.
The indictment also alleges that Jackson paid Tyson $1 million after the family left the ranch.
Question: If Gavin and his siblings did not receive the free education, and the Arvizos did not get the free house, why did they do the video?
He told the jury that Gavin, during the time he was with Jackson, became rude and distant; taking several months to return to normal after 2003.
Jackson (not Michael) said that Gavin had been "brainwashed,"; this remark was, not surprisingly, contested by the defence and was stricken from the records.
He said that the Arvizo family were offered a new house and free college educations, in exchange for appearing in a video refuting the Bashir TV documentary.
The defence pointed out that Jackson had declined the offer, in the hope that he could milk even more out of Michael Jackson.
Jackson, the stepfather, is a major in the U.S. Army Reserve; he stated that he believed that the offer was insufficient, because he believed that Jackson would earn $4M-$5M from selling his rebuttal.
Ah the sweet smell of money and greed, pass the sick bag!
Then for good measure he admitted asking reporters from a British tabloid for money for an interview, seemingly he believed that "it was the standard in the industry."
Following on from this demand, he then seemingly had a change of heart; and claimed that he rejected an offer of $15K.
Quote:
"The more I thought about it, the less I liked it...It just wasn't going to be an appropriate thing to do with this family."
Jackson (the stepfather) said that after the Bashir documentary and associate of MJ, Frank Tyson, called Janet Jackson (nee Arvizo) repeatedly; sometimes up to every 15 minutes, they wanted the Arvizos to appear in a rebuttal video.
Jackson said that Janet was "distressed" by the calls.
At that time Jackson (the stepfather) was not married to Janet, but living with her on an ad hoc basis. Seemingly Tyson told him that the Arvizos could get a new house and free college educations for Gavin, his brother and sister.
Jackson (the stepfather) was not happy with the offer, he believed that MJ was "taking advantage" of the family.
Quote:
"I asked what he was offering financially or monetarily,".
Tyson interpreted this as a blackmail attempt, and allegedly pointed out that "we're offering them protection,".
Eventually Janet agreed to participate in the rebuttal video. In this, she and Gavin, along with his brother and sister, praise M Jackson and deny anything improper happened. However, the children now all testify that the video was scripted and they were coached on what to say.
Tyson has been named, along with four other Jackson associates, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment against M Jackson in April 2004. The indictment alleges that Jackson and the five conspired to intimidate and coerce the Arvizos into participating in damage control after the documentary, including holding them against their will in the weeks after it aired.
The indictment also alleges that Jackson paid Tyson $1 million after the family left the ranch.
Question: If Gavin and his siblings did not receive the free education, and the Arvizos did not get the free house, why did they do the video?
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Head Licking
In the bizarre world that is Michael Jackson's trail, we now find ourselves reading about head licking.
Not exactly something that one would normally be reading about, even in the most salacious or unpleasant of trials.
Bob Jones, Jackson's former publicist gave testimony yesterday, admitting that he saw Jackson lick Jordie Chandler's head when he and his family were on the plane returning from Monaco.
Not exactly the Waltons, is it?
Jones, worked for Jackson from 1987 until last year when he was fired..
Needless to say, like many of the other ex employees he is writing a book ("The Man Behind The Mask") about his time with Jackson. The draft of which is with the prosecution, and contains details of the head licking incident.
Oddly enough, when first questioned about this on Monday, Jones had a touch of amnesia and claimed he could not recall the incident.
Call me old fashioned but you would remember something like that, wouldn't you?
However, the memory lapse was overcome once he was confronted with e-mails that he sent to Stacy Brown (co author of the book) that "the licking is going to be important,".
Quote:
"I would not have made it up,".
How oddly reluctant for a budding author.
Brown was also called to give testimony. He said that he had several conversations with Jones, in which he talked about seeing Jackson lick Jordie's head during the Monaco trip.
Thomas Mesereau, for the defence, wryly pointed out that Brown and Jones' recollections about the incident seemed to change with his finances; that he had a better memory of seeing the licking when he needed money, and a fuzzier memory when he didn't.
When asked about the accuracy of the book, Jones said "It's factual to a degree,"; elaborating that Brown had included things of which he did not approve.
Quotes from the book where introduced; Jones described Jackson and Jordie "holding each other tightly" while sleeping on the return trip from Monaco in an "almost romantic embrace," with "cooing" and licks on the head.
In Jones' e-mail to Brown, he states that "the licking is going to be important because he did it in this case" and that it would "bite him big,".
Jones also said that during the 1993 World Music Awards show, at Jackson's insistence, Jordie and his sister sat on his lap.
Not exactly something that one would normally be reading about, even in the most salacious or unpleasant of trials.
Bob Jones, Jackson's former publicist gave testimony yesterday, admitting that he saw Jackson lick Jordie Chandler's head when he and his family were on the plane returning from Monaco.
Not exactly the Waltons, is it?
Jones, worked for Jackson from 1987 until last year when he was fired..
Needless to say, like many of the other ex employees he is writing a book ("The Man Behind The Mask") about his time with Jackson. The draft of which is with the prosecution, and contains details of the head licking incident.
Oddly enough, when first questioned about this on Monday, Jones had a touch of amnesia and claimed he could not recall the incident.
Call me old fashioned but you would remember something like that, wouldn't you?
However, the memory lapse was overcome once he was confronted with e-mails that he sent to Stacy Brown (co author of the book) that "the licking is going to be important,".
Quote:
"I would not have made it up,".
How oddly reluctant for a budding author.
Brown was also called to give testimony. He said that he had several conversations with Jones, in which he talked about seeing Jackson lick Jordie's head during the Monaco trip.
Thomas Mesereau, for the defence, wryly pointed out that Brown and Jones' recollections about the incident seemed to change with his finances; that he had a better memory of seeing the licking when he needed money, and a fuzzier memory when he didn't.
When asked about the accuracy of the book, Jones said "It's factual to a degree,"; elaborating that Brown had included things of which he did not approve.
Quotes from the book where introduced; Jones described Jackson and Jordie "holding each other tightly" while sleeping on the return trip from Monaco in an "almost romantic embrace," with "cooing" and licks on the head.
In Jones' e-mail to Brown, he states that "the licking is going to be important because he did it in this case" and that it would "bite him big,".
Jones also said that during the 1993 World Music Awards show, at Jackson's insistence, Jordie and his sister sat on his lap.
Jackson Begged To Sleep With Jordie
Jordie Chandler's mother gave testimony at Michael Jackson's trial yesterday. Jordie claimed that he was molested by Jackson in 1993; the case never went to court, as Jackson paid him off.
Jordie's mother said that she allowed Jordie to start spending nights alone with Jackson after he, Jackson, sobbed and pleaded with her to let them sleep together.
Now if this were the case, what parent in their right mind would allow a pitiful clearly disturbed thirty year man like that to sleep with their child?
Something stinks here; either she is lying, or else she must have taken leave of her senses.
Then for good measure she said that, at Jackson's urging, she signed papers giving custody of the boy to his father; seemingly the father had threatened Jackson with legal action.
Quote:
"[Jackson] kept begging me to sign it so there wouldn't be any lawsuits or anything..I didn't understand completely what I was signing."
Why?
Jordie, who is now 25, will not testify because he does not want to get involved in the media spectacle; so his uncle Raymond (who has written a book about it) has told the media.
Jordie's mother recalled the first meeting with Jackson in 1992, when Jackson came to a Los Angeles car rental agency after having car trouble. Her then husband, the boy's stepfather, worked there.
She said that she gave Jackson their phone number, and told him:
"if you'd like to see [him] ... or speak to him."
Within a month Jackson began calling the boy, the conversations "got longer and longer,".
They then began spending weekends at Neverland, and taking trips to Las Vegas, Disneyland and Florida.
On the third visit to Neverland, she said that she refused Jordie's request to spend the night with Jackson in his bedroom.
However, after Jackson started "sobbing, crying, shaking and trembling" she changed her mind; quote:
"You don't trust me. We're a family..There's nothing wrong. There's nothing going on. Why don't you trust me?"
After 30 minutes or so of this pathetic spectacle she consented to allow Jordie to sleep in Jackson's bed.
I repeat, if this is the case, what on earth was she thinking?
No rational, sensible, responsible parent would allow this to happen.
Seemingly the sleepovers happened over 30 consecutive nights. Jackson would visit their home in Santa Monica, to spend the night with Jordie. He would then leave in the morning, and return in the afternoon to eat dinner with the family.
In May 1993, Jackson took the family with him to the World Music Awards in Monaco, and gave her his credit card to go shopping.
Money rears its ugly head!
Jackson also gave her gifts including; a gold Cartier bracelet, earrings, a necklace and a ring, as well as a $7K gift certificate to a Beverly Hills store.
Question: would she have allowed this to go on if Jackson was a penniless neighbour, with no money or celeb status?
It seems that by the Autumn of 1993, the mother claims that she finally woke up to reality. Jordie had become withdrawn, sullen and "was not wanting to be with us anymore." He began dressing like Jackson, and was "not as sweet as he normally was."
Quote:
"[He] was spending too much time with Michael Jackson, and I was upset..I wanted my son back. ... It was getting out of hand."
Question: Did she give all the presents back?
Question: Why did they accept a multimillion dollar settlement to?
Question: Why are they now reneging on this settlement?
This is a story is a sorry indictment of the human condition.
Jordie's mother said that she allowed Jordie to start spending nights alone with Jackson after he, Jackson, sobbed and pleaded with her to let them sleep together.
Now if this were the case, what parent in their right mind would allow a pitiful clearly disturbed thirty year man like that to sleep with their child?
Something stinks here; either she is lying, or else she must have taken leave of her senses.
Then for good measure she said that, at Jackson's urging, she signed papers giving custody of the boy to his father; seemingly the father had threatened Jackson with legal action.
Quote:
"[Jackson] kept begging me to sign it so there wouldn't be any lawsuits or anything..I didn't understand completely what I was signing."
Why?
Jordie, who is now 25, will not testify because he does not want to get involved in the media spectacle; so his uncle Raymond (who has written a book about it) has told the media.
Jordie's mother recalled the first meeting with Jackson in 1992, when Jackson came to a Los Angeles car rental agency after having car trouble. Her then husband, the boy's stepfather, worked there.
She said that she gave Jackson their phone number, and told him:
"if you'd like to see [him] ... or speak to him."
Within a month Jackson began calling the boy, the conversations "got longer and longer,".
They then began spending weekends at Neverland, and taking trips to Las Vegas, Disneyland and Florida.
On the third visit to Neverland, she said that she refused Jordie's request to spend the night with Jackson in his bedroom.
However, after Jackson started "sobbing, crying, shaking and trembling" she changed her mind; quote:
"You don't trust me. We're a family..There's nothing wrong. There's nothing going on. Why don't you trust me?"
After 30 minutes or so of this pathetic spectacle she consented to allow Jordie to sleep in Jackson's bed.
I repeat, if this is the case, what on earth was she thinking?
No rational, sensible, responsible parent would allow this to happen.
Seemingly the sleepovers happened over 30 consecutive nights. Jackson would visit their home in Santa Monica, to spend the night with Jordie. He would then leave in the morning, and return in the afternoon to eat dinner with the family.
In May 1993, Jackson took the family with him to the World Music Awards in Monaco, and gave her his credit card to go shopping.
Money rears its ugly head!
Jackson also gave her gifts including; a gold Cartier bracelet, earrings, a necklace and a ring, as well as a $7K gift certificate to a Beverly Hills store.
Question: would she have allowed this to go on if Jackson was a penniless neighbour, with no money or celeb status?
It seems that by the Autumn of 1993, the mother claims that she finally woke up to reality. Jordie had become withdrawn, sullen and "was not wanting to be with us anymore." He began dressing like Jackson, and was "not as sweet as he normally was."
Quote:
"[He] was spending too much time with Michael Jackson, and I was upset..I wanted my son back. ... It was getting out of hand."
Question: Did she give all the presents back?
Question: Why did they accept a multimillion dollar settlement to?
Question: Why are they now reneging on this settlement?
This is a story is a sorry indictment of the human condition.
Monday, April 11, 2005
The Trial Within a Trial
Raymone Bain, Michael Jackson's spokeswoman, told CBS News this morning that:
"We are now in a trial within a trial...The actual case has been put on hold."
"We are now in a trial within a trial...The actual case has been put on hold."
Jackson's Mother Absents Herself
Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson's mother, said yesterday that the reason that she briefly left the courtroom during the trial last week was to use the rest room; not to avoid hearing graphic testimony.
Katherine Jackson, made the statement through a spokeswoman; quote:
"Accusing me of leaving due to graphic testimony when I simply went to the rest room is not fair, not accurate,".
Her spokeswoman said that Katherine Jackson had stepped out during a break, when attorneys were meeting in the judge's chambers. However, when she tried to re-enter the jury had already been seated; she then had to wait until the next break.
Katherine Jackson, made the statement through a spokeswoman; quote:
"Accusing me of leaving due to graphic testimony when I simply went to the rest room is not fair, not accurate,".
Her spokeswoman said that Katherine Jackson had stepped out during a break, when attorneys were meeting in the judge's chambers. However, when she tried to re-enter the jury had already been seated; she then had to wait until the next break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)