Wie is gekker, Michael Jackson of de media? #6

ONSCHULDIG LIJK MIJ

quote:

---

Op zondag 18 januari 2004 21:24 schreef Radjesh het volgende:
MJ OWNZZZZZZ

ONSCHULDIG LIJK MIJ

---

quote:

---

Op zondag 18 januari 2004 21:24 schreef Radjesh het volgende:
MJ OWNZZZZZZ

ONSCHULDIG LIJK MIJ

---

Anders was er sowieso geen zaak gekomen

In dat geval NIET onschuldig.

quote:

---

Op zondag 18 januari 2004 21:32 schreef Bauhaus het volgende:

[..]

Er moeten dus kinderen zijn die verteld hebben dat MJ aan hun pielemuisje gezeten heeft ?

Anders was er sowieso geen zaak gekomen

In dat geval NIET onschuldig.

---

Maar het kan ook waar zijn natuurlijk. Je moet alleen niet denken dat de kinderen altijd gelijk hebben.
(amerikaanse) ouders doen gekke dingen voor geld, zelfs hun eigen kinderen tot dingen dwingen.

quote:

---

JACKSON WATCH: Michael Jackson pleading innocent to child molestation charges in a Santa Maria, California, courtroom on Friday. The normally sleepy town was invaded by the world press and 250-300 of Jackson's fans. Parking spaces in front of the courthouse selling for $250 a day.

JACKSON ADD: Jackson's lawyer Mark Geragos announcing that attorney Benjamin Brafman is joining Jackson's legal team as co-counsel; Brafman is know for winning an acquittal for P. Diddy on bribery and weapons charges. "Michael and I agreed that expanding the team would best serve his interests as we work toward his acquittal on the false charges that have been leveled against him," Geragos said in a statement.

STAR GAZING: Psychic Uri Geller defending Jackson on Sunday, telling Israel's Army Radio that his popster pal denied allegations that he had sexually abused children after being hypnotized. "He answered me under deep hypnosis that he had never touched a child in a sexual way," Geller said. "He said--and here I'm using his exact words--'My relations with children are very beautiful.'"

---

quote:

---

Op zondag 18 januari 2004 21:18 schreef Mr-Mackey het volgende:
[afbeelding]

---

De media is absoluut gekker dan MJ, hij wordt naar mijn mening vals beschuldigd, terwijl hij door iedereen al schuldig is bevonden. Kan me niet voorstellen dat hij dit heeft gedaan. Hij is natuurlijk naïef om te denken dat in één bed slapen met kinderen juist is, maar dat maakt hem nog geen kindermisbruiker.

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 12:24 schreef BVO het volgende:

[..]

De media is absoluut gekker dan MJ, hij wordt naar mijn mening vals beschuldigd, terwijl hij door iedereen al schuldig is bevonden. Kan me niet voorstellen dat hij dit heeft gedaan. Hij is natuurlijk naïef om te denken dat in één bed slapen met kinderen juist is, maar dat maakt hem nog geen kindermisbruiker.

---

Feit blijft wel dat dit de tweede keer is dat MJ van een dergelijk feit is beschuldigd, hij is een van de weinige celebs bij wie een dergelijk feit meerdere malen omhoog komt. Als hij onschuldig is, zal hij dan toch zijn gedrag moeten veranderen: hij creeert zelf ook een duidelijk schijn die tegen hem werkt.

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 12:26 schreef Ripley het volgende:

[..]

Dat jij je het niet kan voorstellen wil ook niet zeggen dat hij GEEN kindermisbruiker is. Je trekt net als de mensen die hem wel al veroordeeld hebben voorbarige conclusies. Ik wacht liever de zaak en de bewijslast af.

Feit blijft wel dat dit de tweede keer is dat MJ van een dergelijk feit is beschuldigd, hij is een van de weinige celebs bij wie een dergelijk feit meerdere malen omhoog komt. Als hij onschuldig is, zal hij dan toch zijn gedrag moeten veranderen: hij creeert zelf ook een duidelijk schijn die tegen hem werkt.

---

Het is ook niet zo gek dat mensen bij wie de mogelijkheid zich voordoet proberen hier geld uit te halen, door het gedrag van MJ werkt ie dit ook absolut in de hand, maar dit gedrag komt gewoon voort uit de jeugd die hij gehad heeft.

Ben er sinds een paar weken weer intensief naar aan het luisteren, en het klinkt gewoon nog steeds super (hoewel sommige nummers inmiddels een beetje gedateerd klinken naar mijn mening). Ga binnenkort ff z'n albums kopen - zag dat ze bij play.com een aanbieding hadden van 3 albums (special editions nogwel) voor 20 pond - da's zo'n 9 euro per stuk....

Tuurlijk, de persoon Michael Jackson is (volgens mij) niet helemaal 100% bij z'n hoofd - maar wat wil je, met zo'n hectische jeugd/leven. Hij heeft die kinderen echt niet misbruikt. Hij had IMO moeten stoppen na History - dan was ie een legende geweest/gebleven. Nu is ie toch steeds meer een has-been aan het worden, door het "floppen" van albums als Invincible & Number Ones...

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 13:12 schreef PimD het volgende:
Michael Jackson

Ben er sinds een paar weken weer intensief naar aan het luisteren, en het klinkt gewoon nog steeds super (hoewel sommige nummers inmiddels een beetje gedateerd klinken naar mijn mening). Ga binnenkort ff z'n albums kopen - zag dat ze bij play.com een aanbieding hadden van 3 albums (special editions nogwel) voor 20 pond - da's zo'n 9 euro per stuk....

Tuurlijk, de persoon Michael Jackson is (volgens mij) niet helemaal 100% bij z'n hoofd - maar wat wil je, met zo'n hectische jeugd/leven. Hij heeft die kinderen echt niet misbruikt. Hij had IMO moeten stoppen na History - dan was ie een legende geweest/gebleven. Nu is ie toch steeds meer een has-been aan het worden, door het "floppen" van albums als Invincible & Number Ones...

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 13:49 schreef Marinus het volgende:
Naar een concert van hem in 2001 keken 25 miljoen mensen in Amerika en als je vrijdag dan weer ziet wat voor media gekte hij nog steeds kan opwekken, dan is hij als performer en entertainer nog springlevend.

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 13:49 schreef Marinus het volgende:
Ik weet het niet hoor. Maar waarom zegt iedereen dat Michael Jackson een 'has been' is? De verkoopaantallen van zijn albums zijn nog steeds gigantisch. Naar een concert van hem in 2001 keken 25 miljoen mensen in Amerika en als je vrijdag dan weer ziet wat voor media gekte hij nog steeds kan opwekken, dan is hij als performer en entertainer nog springlevend.

---

Daarnaast scoren zijn singles ook lang niet zo goed meer als eerst. Z'n laatste top 10 hit is volgens mij al 5+ jaar geleden (volgens mij was You Rock My World niet zo'n grote hit in NL) - Blood On The Dance Floor uit 1997 stond geloof ik op nummer 2? En als ie dan ook nog eens oude clips gaat recyclen (Smooth Criminal / You Rock My World) kun je toch wel zien dat zijn toptijd voorbij is naar mijn mening.

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 13:54 schreef PimD het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk verkoopt ie nog superveel en zal dat waarschijnlijk nog wel jaren blijven toen - volgens mij heeft ie een van de grootste fanbases ter wereld, vergelijkbaar met The Beatles enzo. Maar als ik zie dat bijvoorbeeld het Number Ones album in Amerika niet hoger dan de top 50 komt (als ik me niet vergis) terwijl History enzo op 1 binnenkwamen.... Dan is het toch allemaal stukken minder dan in de dagen van Bad & Dangerous, om het over Thriller nog maar niet te hebben...

Daarnaast scoren zijn singles ook lang niet zo goed meer als eerst. Z'n laatste top 10 hit is volgens mij al 5+ jaar geleden (volgens mij was You Rock My World niet zo'n grote hit in NL) - Blood On The Dance Floor uit 1997 stond geloof ik op nummer 2?

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 13:56 schreef Marinus het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, het is allemaal wel minder geworden. Blood on the Dance Floor is wel een nummer 1 hit geweest anders had ie ook niet op Number Ones gestaan. Overigens verkoopt Number Ones wel erg goed (wat minder in Amerika, maar in Europa wel erg goed).

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 14:00 schreef BVO het volgende:

[..]

De albums verkopen idd nog wel erg goed, maar dat komt meer door de persoon MJ dan door zijn muziek. De muziek op 'Invincible' en de laatste plaat 'One more chance' is gewoon, zeker als je het vergelijkt met de muziek die hij vroeger maakte, niet al te goed.
MJ kan nu dus nog op zn reputatie terugvallen, maar als dit proces te lang gaat duren raakt ie die ook definitief kwijt en is er niks meer van hem over jammergenoeg .

---

Komt er heeeeeeeeel misschien dan nog een wereldtour (natuurlijk geen USA) + een cd. En dan heeft hij daarna misschien rust.

Alhoewel. Als je Michael Jackson heet. Zal je nooit rust kennen. Die man zal nog van van alles beschuldigd worden als hij al in het graf ligt. Hoge bomen vangen nou eenmaal veel wind

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 14:04 schreef PLAE@ het volgende:

[..]

blijkt hij onschuldig dan wil ik het nog wel eens zien.

Komt er heeeeeeeeel misschien dan nog een wereldtour (natuurlijk geen USA) + een cd. En dan heeft hij daarna misschien rust.

Alhoewel. Als je Michael Jackson heet. Zal je nooit rust kennen. Die man zal nog van van alles beschuldigd worden als hij al in het graf ligt. Hoge bomen vangen nou eenmaal veel wind

---

als klein ventje van 10 ofzo in de Arena maar nu als bijna volwassene zou ik het nog wel een keer willen .

Maarja er is natuurlijk ook nog een kans dat hij echt schuldig is. Alhoewel ik die kans erg klein acht.

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 14:09 schreef PLAE@ het volgende:
Die kans heb ik al gekregen en ook gegrepen

als klein ventje van 10 ofzo in de Arena maar nu als bijna volwassene zou ik het nog wel een keer willen .

Maarja er is natuurlijk ook nog een kans dat hij echt schuldig is. Alhoewel ik die kans erg klein acht.

---

Ja die kans is er altijd, maar kan het me op dit moment gewoon niet voorstellen. Feit blijft nou eenmaal dat deze rechtzaak waarschijnlijk alleen maar verliezers zal kennen. Michael Jackson omdat zijn reputatie sowieso verder zal afbrokkelen, en de 'slachtoffers' omdat ze denk ik deze rechtzaak zullen verliezen.

Maar hoe kom je aan die verkoopcijfers?

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 14:24 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Number Ones is langzaam bezig met een terugkeer naar de hogere regionen van de charts in Amerika. Stond vorige week op #15 (week daarvoor op #39). In de USA heeft hij nu bijna 500.000 albums verkocht, wat niet zo veel is, maar in Engeland doet het album het heel goed, daar zijn er al meer dan een miljoen verkocht.

De DVD van Number Ones staat op #1 in de Billboard lijst.

Met Thriller vergelijken is natuurlijk niet te doen. Dat was een andere tijd. En daarnaast is dit natuurlijk gewoon een 'Best of' album, waarbij niet vergeten moet worden op de dubbel cd van HIStory ook al een 'best of' cd zat. Ik (als toch redelijk fan) heb bijvoorbeeld de nieuwde cd ook niet gekocht. Ik heb alle nummers al.

Ach, met verkoopcijfers kan altijd leuk gegoocheld worden, het gaat mij vooral om de plezier die ik heb van het luisteren naar de muziek.

---

Dus dit is eigenlijk overbodig. Meer iets voor als hij dood is of al jaren gestopt

edit: het is trouwens niet vreemd dat Jackson het niet geweldig doet in de VS. Hij laat het compleet links liggen (wat clips dus zoals je al zei) en met z'n laatste tours in de jaren '90 (dangerous weet ik niet) heeft hij er niet getourd.

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 13:54 schreef PimD het volgende:

Daarnaast scoren zijn singles ook lang niet zo goed meer als eerst. Z'n laatste top 10 hit is volgens mij al 5+ jaar geleden (volgens mij was You Rock My World niet zo'n grote hit in NL) - Blood On The Dance Floor uit 1997 stond geloof ik op nummer 2? En als ie dan ook nog eens oude clips gaat recyclen (Smooth Criminal / You Rock My World) kun je toch wel zien dat zijn toptijd voorbij is naar mijn mening.

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 18:46 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Verstandig!

(en nee, ik heb nog geen baan Jij?)

---

* Peregrijn heeft net een uitkering aangevraagd

Er beginnen wel wat meer vacatures te komen, maare natuurlijk vertel ik jou als concurrent natuurlijk niet waar Sta je nog aan de lopende band?

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 18:53 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

(anders gaan we teveel off-topic.)

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 20:08 schreef PimD het volgende:
* PimD heeft net de special editions van Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad & Dangerous besteld

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 20:14 schreef static het volgende:

[..]

Wat heeft dat met deze zaak te maken?

---

Ben wel benieuwd wat er zou gebeuren als ie schuldig zou worden bevonden (hoewel ik zelf niet geloof dat ie iets heeft gedaan). Kan me eerlijk gezegd niet voorstellen dat ie dan echt 15 jaar de cel in gaat - denk dat ie dan toch zou proberen te verdwijnen of zelfmoord plegen....

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 20:08 schreef PimD het volgende:
* PimD heeft net de special editions van Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad & Dangerous besteld

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 21:02 schreef Iwan1976 het volgende:

[..]

Het enige voordeel van al deze heisa rond Michael Jackson is dat de prijzen van MJ-artikelen enorm zijn gekelderd, maar daar heb je als trouwe fan niet zoveel aan, want die heeft alles al lang en breed in de kast staan

---

nog geen 25 pond voor deze vier, geen geld toch

ligt overigens niet aan die heisa eromheen hoor denk ik, wel meer A-acts zijn overal in prijs gekelderd. Queen bijvoorbeeld - een jaartje of 3 geleden betaalde je voor elk rottig Queen album 45 gulden - nu kun je de meesten voor 7-9 euro per stuk kopen....

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 21:09 schreef PimD het volgende:
ligt overigens niet aan die heisa eromheen hoor denk ik, wel meer A-acts zijn overal in prijs gekelderd. Queen bijvoorbeeld - een jaartje of 3 geleden betaalde je voor elk rottig Queen album 45 gulden - nu kun je de meesten voor 7-9 euro per stuk kopen....

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 21:41 schreef static het volgende:
Zullen we het gewoon weer over de eventuele rechtzaak gaan hebben?

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 19 januari 2004 21:57 schreef Iwan1976 het volgende:

[..]

Laat dat 'eventuele' maar weg... er komt zeker een rechtszaak... de vraag is alleen tegen wie

---

quote:

---

Michael Jackson wil geen financiële regeling.

Michael Jackson weigert een financiële regeling te treffen met de familie van de 14-jarige jongen, die hij seksueel misbruikt zou hebben. Dat heeft Michael's advocaat Mark Geragos verklaard. Volgens de jurist is de familie van de jongen slechts uit op het geld van de popster en weigert Michael te betalen omdat hij onschuldig is. De 'King of Pop' wordt er van verdacht de jongen meerdere malen seksueel misbruikt te hebben. Begin jaren '90 betaalde Michael wel een groot bedrag aan een jongen die zei seksueel misbruikt te zijn, om daarmee een rechtszaak te voorkomen. Hoeveel de familie van de 14-jarige jongen wilde hebben om een rechtszaak te laten vallen is niet bekend.

---

Dus kan de jongen eerst met hulp van de DA een poging wagen. Wordt Jackson schuldig bevonden, dan is het ook wel KA-ching in de civiele zaak. Wordt Jackson vrijgesproken in een rechtzaak, dan kunnen ze nog steeds een civiele procedure starten en misschien iets minder, maar toch nog ettele miljoenen claimen.

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 20 januari 2004 12:53 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Ik heb alvast een toekomstige openingspost in elkaar gedraaid

REDENEN WAAROM DE ZAAK TEGEN MICHAEL JACKSON GEBASEERD IS OP EEN GROTE LEUGEN

1. Officier van Justitie Tom Sneddon beweert dat dit misbruik op vrijdag, 7 februari begon - een dag NADAT de 'Living with Michael Jackson' documentaire op ABC in de USA op tv was. Verwacht Sneddon werkelijk dat iemand gelooft dat Michael Jackson dit kind al twee jaar kent, hem heeft geholpen bij zijn kankerbestrijding en dan WACHTTE tot aan een dag NADAT de documentaire over de hele wereld werd uitgezonden voordat hij hem zou molesteren? Er klopt iets serieus niet aan deze tijdslijn.

2. Nadat de 'Living with Michael Jackson' documentaire was uitgezonden, belde het schoolhoofd van het kind de kinderbescherming om het geval te onderzoeken omdat de klasgenoten van het kind hem over de documentaire plaagden. Nadat grondig het kind, zijn broer, zijn moeder en zijn zus, alle leden van de familie HERHAALDELIJK zijn geinterviewd ONTKENDEN ze dat ooit iets ongepasts plaats heeft gevonden. ZOWEL het LAPD als LA Departement of Children and Family Services concludeerden dat elke angst over seksueel wangedrag van Jackson ONGEGROND was - wat betekend, dat er geen basis voor was.

3. De vader van het kind is naar buiten gekomen en zegt dat de moeder van deze kinderen hun scripts gegeven heeft en hun getraind heeft om in wettelijke handelingen te liegen. De advocaat van de vader bezit kopieën van deze verklaringen en heeft ze inmiddels doorgespeeld aan Michael Jacksons advocaat, Geragos.

4. De moeder zelf heeft een geschiedenis in het indienen van aanklachten van seksueel misbruik. In 1999, nadat haar kinderen gepakt waren voor diefstal uit een kledingzaak en het winkelcentrum uit zijn geëscorteerd, heeft zij later JC Penny/Tower Records aangeklaagd voor mishandeling door de lijfwachten. In het oorspronkelijk proces vermeldde de familie nooit enige seksuele aanvallen. Maar twee jaar na het incident hebben alle vier leden van de familie in verklaringen beweerd dat een Tower bewaker de moeder gedurende het incident seksueel had betast.

De familie kreeg uiteindelijk een bedrag van $152.500

5. Een scheidings-advocaat van de moeder, heeft gezegd dat de familie tot onlangs nooit beweerd heeft dat Jackson de jongen seksueel misbruikte. Advocaat Michael Manning zegt dat hij zich herinnert dat de moeder positieve dingen over Jackson heeft gezegd zelfs tot aan april/mei van vorig jaar.

Relevante artikelen:

DE TIJDLIJN:

Associated Press: Jackson Timeline Could Be Hard To Explain
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/...nment-headlines

Mens News Daily: Michael Jackson Timeline Smacks of Impropriety, but by Whom?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/tong/03/tong121003.htm

Fox 411: Jackson Charges Will Be Difficult To Prove
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105990,00.html

LAPD EN LA DCFS ONDERZOEKEN - SEKSUEEL MISBRUIK ONGEGROND

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo2.html

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/al...ages/29097.html

DE VADER VAN HET KIND ONTKENT MISBRUIK

http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/2654978/d...32FQddLLlAkqAGG

DE GESCHIEDENIS VAN DE FAMILIE IN HET INDIENEN VAN SEKSUELE AANKLACHTEN

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/140025p-124183c.html

DE MOEDER VAN HET KIND PRAAT POSITIEF OVER JACKSON TOT AAN APRIL/MEI

http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1103/111704.html

DE MOEDER VAN HET KIND GEEFT TOE DAT ZE GEESTELIJK ZIEK IS GEWEEST EN HAAR ZOON HEEFT GEBRUIKT OM IN CONTACT TE KOMEN MET BROEMDHEDEN - LA DCFS RAPPORT

http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/04/01/06a.html

http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/doc.../jacko_dept.pdf

KINDEREN ONTKENNEN MISBRUIK DOOR HUN VADER MAAR VERANDEREN LATER HUN VERHAAL - STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY RAPPORT

http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/doc...jacko_state.pdf

---

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 20 januari 2004 12:53 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Ik heb alvast een toekomstige openingspost in elkaar gedraaid

REDENEN WAAROM DE ZAAK TEGEN MICHAEL JACKSON GEBASEERD IS OP EEN GROTE LEUGEN

*verhaal*

---

quote:

---

Servische royalisten boos op Michael Jackson.

Servische royalisten zijn boos op Michael Jackson. De popster droeg bij zijn verschijning vrijdag voor een Californische rechtbank een Servische onderscheiding. "Die psychisch gestoorde ezel denkt dat dat hem goed staat", aldus een van de klagers, Dragmor Acovic, in de Servische krant Blic dinsdag.

Volgens Acovic droeg Jackson een ereteken dat ooit alleen, wegens uitzonderlijke verdiensten, mocht worden uitgereikt door het Servische vorstenhuis. Op de rommelmarkt is de medaille tegenwoordig te koop voor ongeveer 500 euro en dat heeft Jackson er vast voor betaald, denkt Acovic.

De Tsjechische historicus Pavel Simunek vertelde het Franse persbureau AFP dat het gaat om een koninklijke onderscheiding, in 1882 ingesteld door prins (later koning) van Servië Milan Obrenovic. Simunek zei niet goed te kunnen zien of Jackson een authentiek exemplaar of een goedgelukte kopie droeg.

---

quote:

---

Op woensdag 21 januari 2004 00:46 schreef Nature het volgende:
Hij is gestoord, maar wel onschuldig.

---

Nee, hij is gewoon onschuldig en wil juist aardig zijn tegen kinderen.

De media is dus weer gekker, net als over zaken die er wel toe doen.

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 20 januari 2004 12:53 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

REDENEN WAAROM DE ZAAK TEGEN MICHAEL JACKSON GEBASEERD IS OP EEN GROTE LEUGEN

---

Je hebt een opsomming gemaakt van 'feiten' die volgens jou in het voordeel van MJ spreken.

Ik haal er één uit:

quote:

---

3. De vader van het kind is naar buiten gekomen en zegt dat de moeder van deze kinderen hun scripts gegeven heeft en hun getraind heeft om in wettelijke handelingen te liegen.
De advocaat van de vader bezit kopieën van deze verklaringen en heeft ze inmiddels doorgespeeld aan Michael Jacksons advocaat, Geragos.

---

Heeft hij ook kopieën van de scipts? (en vind je het niet wat ongeloofwaardig dat kinderen die nog amper kunnen lezen wel scripts zouden kunnen bestuderen?)
Waarom geloof je die vader op zijn woord, hij heeft bekend zijn kinderen/vrouw te hebben mishandeld en is hierop uit de ouderlijke macht gezet, dus wat maakt dat je zo'n waarde hecht aan zijn verhaal? (bewijzen heeft hij niet geleverd)

Indien de moeder van Gavin alles bekokstooft heeft en alleen maar uit is op geld dan had ze imo vele interviews gegeven de afgelopen 2 maanden aangezien ze daar zéker heel veel geld voor zou hebben ontvangen, en ze heeft geen enkele garantie ooit 1 dollar te krijgen van MJ.

Tot slot, de LAPD ontkend ooit bij het februari-onderzoek betrokken te zijn geweest.

(post je al op het court-forum? grtz )

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 20 januari 2004 12:53 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

DE MOEDER VAN HET KIND GEEFT TOE DAT ZE HAAR ZOON HEEFT GEBRUIKT OM IN CONTACT TE KOMEN MET BROEMDHEDEN - LA DCFS RAPPORT

---

De moeder geeft helemaal niet toe dat ze haar zoon heeft gebruikt om in contact te komen met beroemdheden; alsof ze niets anders aan haar hoofd had op dat moment.

quote:

---

Op woensdag 21 januari 2004 02:14 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

De advocaat beschikt over kopieën van de verklaringen van de vader, en dat moet als bewijs dienen van MJ's onschuld?

Heeft hij ook kopieën van de scipts? (en vind je het niet wat ongeloofwaardig dat kinderen die nog amper kunnen lezen wel scripts zouden kunnen bestuderen?)

---

[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door Iwan1976 op 21-01-2004 06:50]

quote:

---

Op woensdag 21 januari 2004 00:46 schreef Nature het volgende:
Hij is gestoord, maar wel onschuldig.

---

Had ie toch maar ergens rond 1987 gestopt met zijn vervormingen...

MICHAEL NOT GUILTY!!

quote:

---

Op woensdag 21 januari 2004 07:16 schreef Stefkuh het volgende:

[..]
Had ie toch maar ergens rond 1987 gestopt met zijn vervormingen...

---

Hij had gewoon vanaf 1990 niks meer moeten verbouwen. Maar dat was noodzakelijk doordat het er hard op achteruit ging

quote:

---

Old Man's Gotta A Problem With Jackson!
21/01/2004
Michael Jackson has today got a fresh fight on his hands he is being taken on by an 87-year-old war veteran from Ipswich (UK).

Second World War veteran Terry Miles has hit out at the moonwalking pop star after he walked into an American courthouse sporting a British army badge.

Upon his jacket, Michael Jackson sported a British army badge recognised by Ipswich veteran Mr Miles as the emblem used by the Royal Army Service Corps.

And the 87-year-old ex-member saw red when he noticed the army badge being treated as a fashion statement.

To Mr Miles, Jackson's attire was nothing less than "an insult to Queen and country".

Mr Miles said: "My wife pointed it out to me in the paper. I was disgusted. My insides went berserk.

"That badge, being worn by any other nationality, is to me an insult to our Queen and country.

"It means everything to me as a soldier. I think the man should be stopped from wearing it. When I was a young man, if you bought an army coat, you took off the buttons that had the crest.

"That man had made a mistake," he added sternly.

Source: Evening Star

---

A well-known Pennsylvania defense lawyer was recently interviewed by the Philadelphia Tribune and asked about his thoughts regarding Michael Jackson's criminal case. Below is that interview in its entirety.

Area lawyer speaks on Jackson case
By Kimberly C. Roberts
Tribune Entertainment Writer

Pop star Michael Jackson, charged with seven counts of performing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14, and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, is scheduled to be arraigned today in Santa Maria, Calif. The charges stem from allegations by a 12-year-old cancer patient who was featured in the 2003 Martin Bashir documentary "Living with Michael Jackson."

During a recent question-and-answer session, Michael Coard, one of the most respected criminal defense lawyers in the Philadelphia area, addressed some of the issues surrounding the high-profile case.

Kimberly C. Roberts: It has been said that the prosecutor, Tom Sneddon, has a personal vendetta against Jackson because he couldn't make the charges against him stick back in '93. Do you get that impression?

Michael Coard: That's absolutely correct! In fact, the '93 case fizzled, and the other thing that's not getting a lot of publicity is the fact that Sneddon had already announced that he was going to retire. So it looks to me that what he wants before his planned retirement is a Michael Jackson trophy on his wall. He couldn't get it in '93, now there's a slight chance he might get it because, for Sneddon now, it's all or nothing. He couldn't get it in '93, he wants to get it now so that his planned retirement can go on as scheduled, and as I said, he can put that Michael Jackson trophy on the wall. Clearly he is taking this thing too personally, based on the 1993 case. No doubt about it!

KCR: As a criminal defense lawyer, what would your strategy be if you were defending Michael Jackson?

MC: As you know, the prosecution goes first with its case and the defense goes second. If the prosecution did not put on a strong enough case, I would argue something called a demurrer, also known as a motion for judgment of acquittal. It's simply a request to the judge that says this: "Judge, you've heard all of the prosecution's case, you've heard all of their evidence, you've heard all of their testimony. So what?"

You're saying, "Even if you believe what they say, judge, what they say doesn't rise to the level of the crime that my client has been charged with." So I'm arguing as a matter of law the prosecution's case is insufficient, so I'm raising this demurrer, I'm moving for a judgment of acquittal, and I don't even need to put on my case. If the prosecution's case is weak enough, the judge will throw it out right then and there.

But the judge might say, "Well, Mr. Coard, I hear your argument, but the prosecution, I'm not saying put on a strong case, but they did put on enough to carry the case forward." Having said that, the first thing I probably would do, just to let the jury know what kind of guy my client is, I'd put on all my character witnesses first.

Of course you run a risk with Michael Jackson as your defendant, because the prosecution is probably going to deal with the issue of a grown man having boys in his bed. But I would argue that there was no crime committed and there were no charges filed. That stuff might be weird, but it's not a crime.

The third thing I'd do is to call the complainant himself to the stand. Why? During this program that was on back in February, the child was actually interviewed. In fact, he was with Michael Jackson at the time, and he stated that he and Michael Jackson actually were in the same room together, but never in the same bed together. So if the boy, during the trial, when the prosecution calls him, says that, 'Yeah, Michael Jackson and I were in the same room, but never in the same bed,' then I wouldn't call him to the stand because he's already helped me.

But if he, as we say in the criminal justice system, "goes south," if he gets on the stand and says, "Michael Jackson molested me, he brutalized me, he raped me," if he says all those things, what I would do is to have that videotape available in the courtroom and impeach him with his prior statement.

Once you get that in, you can argue during closing, "Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution has the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their major witness is a liar. Either he was lying when he said Michael Jackson did this to him, or he was lying when he said Michael Jackson did not do this to him. But the fact is, he's a liar."

They've got Michael Jackson charged with seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14. The problem is this: They say of those seven counts, five of them happened between Feb. 7 and March 10. Now that would mean that Michael Jackson is the dumbest person in the history of criminal defense, because this documentary was broadcast worldwide on Feb. 6! He's already said some stuff that makes him look bad. Why would he then go out and do some stuff? Maybe he could have done these things before the broadcast, (but) now he's thinking, "Oh my God! Now that this stuff is all over the world, maybe I'd better take a back seat and slow down and have no connection with little boys." But if Michael Jackson knew that he had not done anything, then of course he's going to continue to act as he already has.

KCR: I know that you don't have all the facts, but given the information that you do have, do you think that Jackson will be able to beat these charges?

MC: No doubt about it. It's not even going to be close, because everything that I'm telling you now obviously has gone out by way of the media, but (Jackson's attorney) Mark Geragos knows that and much more. All of that's going to come out. The DA has kind of tipped his hand because of this personal vendetta. It's no doubt about it. I'm extremely confident about Kobe's (Bryant) case. I'd say that Kobe has a 75 to 80 percent chance of being found not guilty. I'd say that Michael Jackson's got a 95 to 100 percent chance of winning."

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

---

Op woensdag 21 januari 2004 20:41 schreef Iwan1976 het volgende:

Defense Lawyer: Michael Has 95 to 100 % chance of winning

---

quote:

---

Op donderdag 22 januari 2004 00:40 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Is inderdaad pure propaganda. Hoe kan die advocaat op basis van wat we nu weten ooit zulke uitspraken doen?

Wat vond je trouwens van het audiofragment?

---

[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door schatje op 22-01-2004 00:45]

quote:

---

Op donderdag 22 januari 2004 00:43 schreef schatje het volgende:

[..]

Ik kan me degelijke uitspraken goed voorstellen. Zou ik ook doen als ik hoorde dat iemand mijn kind heeft misbruikt.

---

of je het puntje bij paaltje dan werkelijk tot daden over gaat ligt aan allerlei factoren.

quote:

---

Op donderdag 22 januari 2004 00:54 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

Waarom is er dan nooit enig bewijs voor gevonden voor de gerechtelijke zaak? (dus niet die MJ heeft afgekocht)

---

Chandler wilde niet getuigen (volgens afspraak) dus was er geen zaak.

quote:

---

[b]'Slachtoffer' Jackson in slechte gezondheid.

Het jongetje dat Michael Jackson beschuldigt van misbruik, verkeert in bijzonder slechte gezondheid. De jongen heeft kanker en wordt voortdurend verzorgd door zijn familie. Ze kunnen weinig aandacht besteden aan de rechtszaak. Dat heeft de voormalige advocaat van de moeder van het kind donderdag tegenover de Associated Press verklaard.

Dickerman stelt tevens dat hij denkt dat er voldoende bewijzen tegen Jackson zijn. "Er is meer dan genoeg overtuigend mondeling bewijs", aldus Dickerman. Ook zou een psycholoog overtuigende bewijzen van mishandeling vastgesteld hebben na gesprekken. De advocaat verklaarde 'niet verbaasd' te zijn als er ook fysiek bewijs zal worden aangevoerd.

Dickerman leerde de familie van het vermeende misbruikte jongetje kennen, nadat hij door Jamie Masada aan hen werd voorgesteld. Masada is eigenaar van een comedy club, die ook Jackson en het jongetje aan elkaar voorstelden in 2002.

Tegen Jackson zijn vorige maand zeven aanklachten wegens misbruik van een kind van 14 jaar ingediend, en twee wegens het toedienen van wijn aan minderjarigen. Jackson zegt onschuldig te zijn.

---

quote:

---

Op donderdag 22 januari 2004 01:17 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

[..]

Wie zegt dat er geen bewijs was?

Chandler wilde niet getuigen (volgens afspraak) dus was er geen zaak.

---

Er was dus niet genoeg bewijs voor een strafzaak toendertijd

Below is an interview that MSNBC's Stacy Brown conducted with Grace Rwarmba, the Nanny to Michael Jackson's children:

MSNBC: There's been a lot of talk about you in the media lately. What's your reaction?

Rwarmba: I'm flabbergasted. I cannot believe they are interested in me. Neither Michael nor I watch television because of the propaganda. The interest of the media in me is so displaced and potentially troubling. I will not allow the media to shape or mold my emotions with what is written and said about Michael and I.

MSNBC: What is it about you that you'd like people to know?

Rwarmba: If the media really wants to know who I am, why don't they bring their cameras along with me to underdeveloped or third world countries where six-year-old children are living in the streets without parents. Or go with me where there are earthquake victims in the Middle East and where thousands are dying. Come go with me even closer to home to our emergency rooms in hospitals where hard working people are turned away just because they don't have health insurance.

MSNBC: What about the non-stop reports that you introduced Michael Jackson to the Nation of Islam?

Rwarmba: Totally false. I did not introduce Michael to the Nation of Islam. In fact, Jermaine Jackson didn't introduce them to Michael Jackson either.

MSNBC: Are you a Muslim?

Rwarmba: I have strong beliefs in God and have a keen interest in religion and am aware of my spirituality. I have studied the bible with (Jacksons friend) Dr. Firpo Carr and Michael's sister, Rebbie Jackson, and Dr. Carr and Rebbie Jackson are Jehovah's Witnesses.

MSNBC: Why do you think Michael is again facing allegations of child abuse?

Rwarmba: Satan the Devil. He is behind all of this mess.

BRON: MJNI.COM

Below is a message from Michael Jackson's Team - to his wonderful fans accross the globe:

"Dear Fans:

By now nearly everyone has returned home after a wonderful showing of support for Michael in Santa Maria, California at his arraignment. Michael wishes to deeply thank those who traveled from both within and outside of the United States. Your presence definitely made a positive impact on his day and as you could see he was overwhelmed by your love and support. To those of you who could not travel but were with Michael in spirit, he also extends a heartfelt expression of gratitude. In the coming weeks we will continue to update you and will keep you posted on future court dates where Michael will be in attendance. We will let you know as early as possible when Michael will be in court so that you can make travel plans and join Michael as he fights these false and vicious allegations. Thank you once again. Michael sends his love.

Michael's Team"

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 23 januari 2004 12:03 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Accusing Family Using Illness to Gain Sympathy?

---

Even zoeken of ik er een berichtje van kan vinden.

Het gaat iig om deze man, denk ik...

quote:

---

The singer was introduced to the alleged victim by Jamie Masada, a comedy club owner who runs a childrens camp. Masada said the boy, hospitalized with cancer, wanted to meet Jackson, and Jackson obliged, forming a relationship with the boy and his mother.

---

[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door milagro op 23-01-2004 19:06]

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 23 januari 2004 19:35 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, gaat om Masada. Ik noem de persconferentie een paar posts hoger ook al.

---

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 23 januari 2004 20:16 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Ja, dat zal best, er lopen heel wat gekke MJ fans rond. Maar dat heeft natuurlijk niet zoveel met de zaak te maken.

---

Volgens mij is het push en pull. Zoals altijd overigens. We love to hate them...

quote:

---

Jacko is NOT their father

By Carole Aye Maung, US Correspondent

MEGASTAR Michael Jackson's claim he is the natural father of the two children born to ex-wife Debbie Rowe is a LIE.

Debbie was artificially inseminated with anonymously donated sperm to give birth to son Prince Michael Jnr and daughter Paris.

The bombshell factrevealed by Debbie in a legal dossiercould be her strongest weapon in her bid to wrest control of the children from 45-year-old Jacko.

She wants to stop him using "rich and influential friends" to send Prince Michael and Paris out of the U.S. before he faces charges of sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy.

The News of the World has learned the secrets of the documents drawn up by Debbie, seen with Jackson top right, as she prepares to seek "temporary exclusive custody" of the children. The papers reveal:

Jackson hid the truth about the PATERNITY of the children, aged six and five, when he was grilled about their light-complexioned features by Martin Bashir for his ITV documentary. The star insisted he WAS their true biological father.

Jacko and Debbie DID enter into a SURROGACY agreement on January 23 1996. The deal made their marriage ceremony nine months later a total shamaimed only at securing his parental rights.

Michael was so obsessed with controlling the creation of each child he imposed a six-month SEX BAN on Debbie before insemination.

In return for bearing Michael two children, Debbie received a staggering £6million PAY-OFF. She also got a £1.6million Beverly Hills home, a car, clothes, furs and jewels. Michael continues to pay her monthly expenses. Last month she claimed £35,000.

In the surrogacy agreement Debbie, 41, agreed to "knowingly and voluntarily waive my right to contest Michael's paternity of either child" and "consent to Michael being declared the father".

But in the legal documents she also described the astonishing secrets of how she became pregnant.

Debbie states: "I have no information whatsoever about the identity of the semen donor for either child, as such semen was obtained anonymously from a semen bank under an agreement of confidentiality.

"I consented to the artificial insemination with the specific intent of bearing a child to which Michael would be the father and treated in all respects as the father..."

Blonde and blue-eyed Debbie also details how Jacko insisted that for six months she "refrained from sexual relations and avoided any possibility of semen being introduced into my body other than by way of surgical artificial insemination."

On May 28 and 29, 1996, following the stipulated sex ban, Debbie was artifically inseminated by Beverly Hills fertility specialist, Dr Hal C. Danzer.

He confirms: "I was requested by Petitioner, Deborah Rowe Jackson and Respondent, Michael J. Jackson to perform an artificial insemination of semen, donated to and for the use of Respondent, into the uterus of Petitioner for the principal purpose of assisting Respondent in having a child of his own."

The pair married in Australia on November 15 1996, three months before Prince Michael Jr was born.

After another four months Debbie was inseminated again, and Paris was born in April 1998.

By October the following year the couple were divorced. Jacko went on to have son Prince Michael II nicknamed Blanket with a second surrogate mum.

His divorce agreement with Debbie shows she agreed to give him "sole legal and physical custody".

She was allowed to visit the children only once every 45 days, between 10am and 7pm, with their nanny Gracie Rwarmba present.

Jacko gave Debbie a first-class plane ticket for each visit. But the following year she agreed to give up her visiting rights altogether.

In her declaration to regain custody, she explains: "In or about November 2000, I believed that Michael was the most wonderful father in the worldbased upon observations with him and our children."

But then her fears grew that he would send Prince Michael and Paris out of the US.

She states: "Michael has close, influential and rich friends all over the world...

"He has the ability to have the children taken out of the United States and never returned. He has the financial ability to rent a private jet at a moment's notice."

She also claims that Jackson is "easily influenced" and she fears he is being led by extremist Muslims in the Nation of Islam movement.

Worries

She states: "Michael's involvement with a cult, Nation Of Islam, is horrifying to me. I am Jewish and I converted to Judaism in 1982 before marrying my first husband. Therefore, our children are Jewish."

Debbie says she knows the Nation of Islam "do not like Jews" which "causes me endless worries".

She also claims she told Jacko last month she would never agree to his "secret plans" for his mother Katherine to adopt her children.

Jackson continues to show "poor judgment," she says, in stating it is acceptable for him to sleep in the same bed with children.

And she suggests that she move into the Neverland ranch with the children now Michael has vowed never to return there.

Jacko has vowed to fight to keep the children. He will stand trial on the abuse charges later this year.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/showbiz/showbiz2.shtml

---

quote:

---

Jacko isn't fit to be a dad

SUPERSTAR Michael Jackson has been branded unfit to be a dad by his ex-wife as she prepares to unleash a bitter court battle.

Lawyers acting for Debbie Rowe, who has two children by the 45-year-old singer, have drawn up an application seeking custody of them.

And according to a source who has seen the legal documents - due to be lodged in a Los Angeles court in the next two weeks - they "pull no punches".

The papers are said to accuse Jackson of being an "unfit father" to Prince Michael, six, and Paris, five.

Debbie, 41, also expresses fears about the welfare of the youngsters given that Jacko is currently facing molestation charges.

The source said: "The papers accuse Michael of everything. Debbie wants the children and she wants them now."

Debbie - who has always denied Jacko paid her to have the children - is being represented by the lawyer who handled her 1999 divorce, Iris Finsilver.

Jackson is due to stand trial later this year on seven counts of child abuse and two of administering an intoxicating substance.

But it is not only the current allegations that have provoked Debbie into suing for custody.

In her application she says she is also worried about the way her children are made to wear masks in public and are kept in virtual seclusion away from other kids.

The source said: "She points out in the papers that they do not have a normal childhood.

"They don't get to play with other children much, they spend virtually all their time with their father, they don't even go to school, they are tutored at home."

"Debbie says she does not feel the children are growing up like other kids their age. They live as bizarre an existence as their dad does."

Debbie, who is Jewish, is also increasingly worried about Jacko's involvement with the controversial group The Nation of Islam.

The kids' nanny Grace Rwarmba is a member of the organisation, whose leader Louis Farrakhan has made anti-semitic statements.

Debbie has also found a surprise ally in prominent women's rights lawyer Gloria Allred.

Allred filed a letter of complaint to the LA Department of Children and Family Services asking them to investigate the singer and take his children into temporary custody.

Debbie - pregnant when she wed Jackson in Australia in 1996 - was reportedly paid a multi-million dollar settlement to give up her rights to the children when they divorced.

But a clause in the deal stated that if at any time she felt her children's welfare was at risk she could seek custody.

Jackson's attorney Brian Oxman hit back: "You cannot sell children in America.

"So no matter how much money Michael may have paid Debbie Rowe, no matter what the wording of his agreement with her may be, if she decides she wants her children back she can go to court and fight for custody."

Debbie met Jacko when she worked for his dermatologist in Beverly Hills. Their son Prince Michael was born on February 13, 1997.

Daughter Paris was born on April 3, 1998. Jacko revealed on Martin Bashir's ITV documentary how he had literally snatched the baby the minute she was born and ran off with her.

Debbie split with Jacko soon after and they divorced in October 1999.

Jacko went on to have another baby, Prince Michael II, with an anonymous surrogate mother - and was condemned for dangling the tot over a Berlin hotel balcony in 2002.

Debbie is believed to have indicated in her legal papers that she would be willing to bring up Prince Michael II as well as her own children if granted custody.

Yesterday Jacko's former aide Stuart Backerman said losing his children "would kill" the singer. He said: "Michael's children are critical to his life. He adores them."

Attorney Oxman praised Jacko as a father but admitted he had also become increasingly worried about the influence the Nation of Islam was having on the entertainer.

Claims ... Debbie with Jacko

Jacko has said that if he does end up going to prison his dad Joe and mum Katherine will look after his children. Debbie has told her legal advisers that she does not want that to happen.

Several meetings have taken place between both sets of lawyers to try to sort out an arrangement to avoid a custody battle.

But Jackson's camp warn Debbie she will have a fight on her hands if she does press ahead.

They say they will bring up two "significant" interviews Debbie has given over the years.

She gave one a year after her marriage in which she admitted having very little to do with the upbringing of baby Prince Michael.

Revealing how the couple lived apart she said: "I miss Michael a lot too. But I don't feel like I have to be there, I don't think being there 24 hours a day makes a better relationship."

She denied she had the baby in return for a cash payment, saying: "I didn't do this for money. I did this because I love him."

More damaging to Debbie's case is an interview she gave GMTV in April after the controversy over the Bashir documentary, in which she admitted her children do not even call her "Mum".

A source said: "The kids hardly know who she is."

---

"Don't believe a word of the stories coming out of the United Kingdom about Debbie Rowe suing Michael Jackson for custody of their kids."

Those are the words of Roger Friedman, FOX News, after reports of a custody battle by several UK outlets.

"Rowe is said to have laughed heartily when she heard the British tabloid The Sun made up their latest fiction", Friedman states.

This comes after earlier in the week reports came out of the UK saying that Debbie Rowe was concerned for her children being "made to wear masks when out in public." This was reported despite her appearance in a documentary less than a year ago stating that the "masks" were in fact her idea.

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

---

Op zondag 25 januari 2004 18:16 schreef milagro het volgende:
Als MJ zijn baby had laten vallen, hadden verstokte fans nog een excuus gevonden volgens mij voor dit gedrag..ik word iedere keer weer naar als ik die foto of de beelden zie

---

Judge Rodney S. Melville today ordered for documents containing information regarding the search of Neverland to remain sealed, according to the Associated Press.The 82-page documents and related tape recordings were to be sealed as they contained "sensitive information".

When making the ruling, the Judge "hinted" at the contents: the Accuser's account of events, interviews with his family, statements regarding psychological counselling and information regarding the case in 1993, in which Michael Jackson was accused of similar allegations.

Attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. is representing the media in trying to make these documents public. However, the Judge will be denying public access, and cannot anticipate when that would be.

News media have also been requesting a lift on the gag order that was put in place on the Prosecution and Defence on January 16th. However, Judge Melville refused this request, although he will address it on February 13th. The Judge "chastised" both sides of the case for previous comments made before the gag order was put in place, including Tom Sneddon's comment of "Wacko Jacko" in an interview with Court TV's Diane Dimond, and comments made on CNN's Larry King Live by Mark Geragos that the allegations were "a scam" and "a shakedown".

BRON: MJNI.COM

PAULA ZAHN NOW

Interview With Andrew Card; Interview With Michael Jackson's Attorney

Aired January 21, 2004 - 20:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paul Zahn.
The world, the news, the names, the faces, and where we go from here on this Wednesday, January 21, 2004.

(...)

ZAHN: I'm going to have an exclusive interview with the newest member of Michael Jackson's defense team, attorney Benjamin Brafman.

Also, I will be telling you about a new report that a major TV network tried to make a deal with Michael Jackson to shelve a potentially damaging story in exchange for an interview. That would be NBC.

(...)

ZAHN: Welcome back. In just a minute, I'll have an exclusive interview I told you about, with Michael Jackson's new lawyer.

(...)

So, what was Michael Jackson's new attorney thinking when the singer jumped on the top of his SUV and blew kisses to the crowd following his arraignment. That's just one of the questions we have for Benjamin Brafman who is here for an exclusive interview.

He is under a gag order, so he may have to answer some questions quite gingerly, but he is free to talk about dealing with celebrities in court. And that's where we begin tonight. Welcome, good to see you.

BENJAMIN BRAFMAN, MICHAEL JACKSON'S ATTORNEY: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about strategies that you would use in defending Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson. There clearly is a different vernacular when you have a celebrity client.

BRAFMAN: They really is. Celebrity clients are unlike any other clients, because they are generally very powerful individuals who are used to doing things their own way. And they are usually are in control or have a dozen people around them who are exercising control.

When you inject them into the criminal justice system, as a criminal defense lawyer, you need to seize control suddenly it's a new experience for them and sometimes depending on the personality that you're dealing with, a difficult job to have them understand the process.

ZAHN: Well, you also alienate a lot of people in the process too, as you try to seize control. Are you having that problem right now in the Michael Jackson case?

BRAFMAN: Not at all. To be perfectly honest with you, everyone around Michael Jackson has been terrific, including Michael. I think they recognize that I'm good at what I do. I'm going to try to do a very good job along with Mark Geragos. We have had not one minute of difficulty or divisiveness.

ZAHN: When you defended Sean "Puffy" Combs, you made a decision to put him on the stand. From when you know these other case we just brought out, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, would you do that to them?

BRAFMAN: I think each case has to be viewed individually and is fact specific. What the charges are, who the client is, whether they can handle it and what they are going to say. If a client like "Puffy," who was not guilty, can get up on the witness stand and explain what happened and is a very impressive, articulate man as he is, it was a very easy call. "Puffy" wanted to testify from the moment I met him. I think he won the trial.

ZAHN: Martha Stewart, would you put her on the stand?

BRAFMAN: Depends.

ZAHN: What would concern you about putting her out there?

BRAFMAN: Well, the first thing that concerns me, she is charged with lying. So, obviously she spoke to the government once, they didn't believe her. A lot depends on what evidence they have that she wasn't telling the truth then and can they show that she's not going to be telling the truth again.

Martha Stewart, however, is such a powerful, important lady and such a success story that I think the pressure is going to be to put her on the stand because I think jurors are going to expect her to explain herself.

ZAHN: Now, I don't know if you know as little as Jeffrey Toobin does about female's handbags, but as an attorney representing her, would you happily have her walk into the courtroom with a multithousand, some said 6 to $12,000 bag in the courtroom. Would that be an arrogant gesture as far as you would be concerned?

BRAFMAN: I'll tell you the truth, given who Martha Stewart is and how much money people think she has, and how successful she is, I don't think you can dress down Martha Stewart. You can't take her to Kmart and tell her to pick out a cheap outfit so that she won't embarrass any of the jurors. This is Martha Stewart.

ZAHN: She can afford it.

BRAFMAN: To be honest with you, until the press labeled it as a $6,000 handbag, it could have been an $800 handbag.

ZAHN: Most guys wouldn't know the difference.

BRAFMAN: That's true.

ZAHN: Women who covet them would. Let's move on.

BRAFMAN: Women who covet them aren't going to be on that jury.

ZAHN: No, that is true.

Let's move on to the circus atmosphere we saw unfold on Friday. Is that something you regretted that your client Michael Jackson, after the arraignment, got up on that SUV and basically performed to his fans?

BRAFMAN: I don't think that's what happened. And I think that's what everyone thinks happened. I was there.

ZAHN: What happened?

BRAFMAN: I think what Michael Jackson saw is what we saw. The fans were pushing forward so severely, that it was becoming a dangerous situation. And what these people wanted, some traveled from Japan, from Germany, from Poland, they slept on the streets since 4:00 in the morning, they wanted to see Michael Jackson and the fences were beginning to fall down.

I mean, all of the correspondents were moving away, because we thought this was going to be like a South American soccer match where suddenly people were being trampled.

Michael Jackson, getting up on the car did two things, one, he showed some love and respect for people who flew thousands of miles away. Two, the moment he got up on the car, the people backed away and the crisis was resolved. He got in the car and pulled away. It's not going to have an impact on the outcome of the trial.

I will also tell you this was not a sign of disrespect by Michael Jackson. He's just not made that way. He's a very, very courteous, sweet, person who just doesn't think in a venal or corrupt way.

ZAHN: But that's what people thought. They thought it was sheer arrogance on his part. That he was tweaking the judge. A judge who was mad he showed up late, by the way, in court that day.

BRAFMAN: Well, I will also tell you that Michael being late that day had nothing to do with Michael Jackson who was ready to come to court since 5:00 in the morning. Moving Michael Jackson is like moving the president of the United States. It's crazy. It's absolutely nuts. He's got nothing to do with it.

There are a hundred people involved and they blew it. It will never happen again. There is nothing that Michael Jackson wanted to do to show disrespect. This is a terrific judge, he's a fair man. He ruled in Michael's favor in a number of important issues. Michael Jackson just is not a disrespectful person.

ZAHN: Let's come back to the final question of the scene you described and how spontaneously you say it unfolded. We actually have a shot of Mark Geragos, the co-lead counsel, in the crowd, standing very close to him by that SUV.

It has been reported that he actually asked Jackson to get down off the SUV. Was the defense team in control? And is that true.

BRAFMAN: We were both asking him to get down, because we were concerned that this area was becoming unsafe. This wasn't me being concerned, this was going to affect the trial or how it's going to be perceived.

I'm telling you, I was in the middle of that. It was a frightening moment. There were thousands of people pushing forward. The temporary fencing that had been erected by the local police was giving way. I think you can ask Jeffrey Toobin and Dan Abrams and anyone else who was in the circle there. There was only a couple of seconds before all hell was going to break loose and people were going to be completely out of control.

I wanted him down, yes, but what was going through my mind was, let's get Michael out of here, because this is becoming dangerous. To be perfectly honest with you, I wanted to get out of there, too.

ZAHN: A lot of speculation about the role that the Nation of Islam is playing in this case. Can you characterize for us the extent of its involvement, not only in this case, but in Michael Jackson's life? BRAFMAN: I don't know what role, if any, they have in Michael Jackson's life, if they have one, I have not been exposed to it. They are involved with security. And to be honest with you, I'm not a fan of the Nation of Islam, my kids and grandchildren live in Israel. I'm a proud Jew. And I know what their policy has been.

But I will tell you, in all due respect, if they were not there that morning, and if they were not there to supplement the security of the local police, we could have had a real tragedy on our hands. Because I was watching young kids about to be trampled and it was only the Nation of Islam security people that were able to hold people back until Michael left the scene.

I don't know what is going on in terms of his personal life. It's really known of my business. I will tell you, they treated me with extraordinary courtesy and respect. They have not tried to interfere at all in terms of any legal decision. Mark Geragos and I are completely in control of that. So, to the extent that they are working with Michael in his personal life, that's really none of my business.

ZAHN: So you say, there's absolutely no evidence of their being involved in any maneuvering, legal maneuvering at all, at least vis-a- vis your involvement.

BRAFMAN: Legal maneuvering, none whatsoever. His personal life, do they have a presence, are they dealing with them? Sure. But that's really -- and that's not why I was retained, I was brought out there, as I said, to someone very recently, I was brought out there to defend Michael Jackson, not to convert Michael Jackson.

So, to the extent that they are providing security and they are doing a good just, that's fine. If they become a disruptive influence in any way, I would make my opinion known about that and I think my opinion counts.

ZAHN: Your reputation is very well known as an attorney who has gotten a lot of his clients out of very sticky situation. Are you allowed to tell us tonight, in the general sense, what you see as your biggest challenge in defending Michael Jackson now as your case moves forward?

BRAFMAN: I'm not allowed to comment on the facts. I think the biggest challenge I have in this case, or any other case that becomes a media circus is not to lose my focus. My focus is not the case, not the atmosphere, not the media spin on what is going on.

I had an observation during the "Puff Daddy" case one day, when I said to someone in passing, look, if we have a bad press day tomorrow but at the end of the day we win, no one is going to remember the bad press day. If have you a good press day, but because of that good press day you compromised your strategy or you lost focus, then if you lose the case no one is going to remember the good press day.

So, my job is not to get a good press day. My job is to keep my focus. Mark and I are working very well together on this. And we think at the end of the day if we do our job it will have a good outcome. But I'm not prepared or permitted -- although prepared not permitted to comment on the facts.

ZAHN: Just a final thought of all the manipulation that is involved with this information. First of all, CNN is among a number of news organizations try to get the affidavit of the search of the house unsealed so we have a better understanding of what it was, these prosecutors were looking for.

Characterize for us how accurate some of the stories surrounding that affidavit been?

BRAFMAN: Well...

ZAHN: Have readers and television viewers have an accurate picture of what this case is about?

BRAFMAN: I don't think so. It never is completely accurate picture to the outside world. Whenever you're in a case, whether it's Puff Daddy or Martha Stewart or Jayson Williams or Kobe Bryant or Scott Peterson or Michael Jackson. When you're in the courtroom, sometimes you are stunned when you understand what the real facts are, when you've been reading about what the facts are supposed to be for a long time. And I think that's one of the reasons the judge in his wisdom, I think he was right on the money, and he's a very good judge.

I think the judge ruled that the affidavit stays sealed. I think this case should be decided in the courtroom and not on what someone said three months ago in order to obtain a search warrant where the standards are a lot different. So, I think if we try this case in the courtroom and you have a very strict judge who is not going to permit cameras in the courtroom, lowers the temperature, lessens the circus atmosphere, I think if we get a fair trial that's all Michael Jackson wants is a day in court.

ZAHN: Do you think you have a fair minded judge?

I mean, there were some things done in the courtroom on Friday that some people perceived as hurting you. They didn't allow you to participate in the arraignment. By the same token he was pretty tough on the prosecution that day too wasn't he.

BRAFMAN: This is a terrific judge. My papers were filed for permission to proceed. The judge did not have all of them immediately in front of them. When he got them he allowed me to participate. He listened to both sides. He was fair, I think he was correct, and he has a terrific judicial temperament. And he is a no-nonsense judge that has a great reputation. And that's what I like on the courtroom.

ZAHN: In a scale to 10 of all celebrities representative in terms of difficulty this upcoming case, Michael Jackson, where would you put it?

BRAFMAN: I think Michael Jackson is in a league of his own as a celebrity. He is a world super star. And when you are a world super star that carries with it a little bit more responsibility and perhaps difficulty, but not as a result of the case. As a result of the exposure.

ZAHN: So would that be a 12 -- on a one to 10 scale.

BRAFMAN: I like Michael Jackson and I'm going to do my best to help him.

ZAHN: Thank you for your time tonight.

(...)

A report that one TV network pursuing an interview with Michael Jackson offered to shelve a potentially damaging report about him. We'll have that story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: In the quest to land all things, Michael Jackson, did NBC blur the lines between news and entertainment? The "New York Times" says the network offered Jackson $5 million for exclusive video and an interview. Now along with the money, the "Times" says NBC said it would pre-empt a dateline investigative segment on Jackson. Did NBC go too far? Joining us right now, Michael Wolfe, the media critic for "New York Magazine." Also good to see you, Michael. So what did NBC do wrong here?

MICHAEL WOLFE, MEDIA CRITIC, "NEW YORK MAGAZINE": They said the word "pre-empt" and the word "pre-empt" means we're going to take what you offer us over this other thing that we had scheduled. And now NBC is saying, well, we didn't really mean that and we would do it later.

ZAHN: Let's put up on the screen what they are saying. They're saying it would constitute a scheduling change. There was actually, quote, "no quid pro quo involving NBC New or "Dateline." The proposed pre-emption was in no way offered as a cancellation of "Dateline's" investigative piece. Merely a scheduling change."

WOLFE: We can say, do you believe that? Or we can put that aside and say what we have here, very clearly, incontrovertibly is the appearance of impropriety. And I think that that's it. They either really did something stupid, I mean, we didn't mean it, but there it is. Or they meant it. And what they meant to say is that we're going to get better ratings for this so we're going to bump the news item. Forget it. We're going to give you Michael Jackson, a pass, theoretically on the news that we had scheduled to run.

ZAHN: You think the scheduling excuse is a bunch of bunk.

WOLFE: Bunk, exactly.

ZAHN: And that is what? To kill a tough piece?

WOLFE: They were in a deal here. It was a business consideration. Forget the news, forget the news side of what we in the network business do. This is business, we want a Michael Jackson interview over more than we want this news segment that we have done.

ZAHN: And explain to us why this is any different than what happened with CBS when Ed Bradley just recently landed the interview with Michael Jackson which was tied into an entertainment deal, right, with a special that aired on CBS Entertainment. Are they analogous?

WOLFE: It's absolutely the same thing. Everybody wanted the highest rating numbers they could get out of Michael Jackson. And other considerations, news considerations be damned.

ZAHN: So we're not supposed to pay for interviews but essentially what you're saying that is what is happening in all the fancy deals that are cut for Jessica Lynch and trying to get Michael Jackson on the air? Creative ways of getting interviews...

WOLFE: I think there are probably several other things you can say, Jessica Lynch is bad because of those reasons. Michael Jackson is bad because of -- because they are just focused on getting Michael Jackson there, getting the most ratings they can. Everything else, every other news consideration be damned.

ZAHN: Michael Wolfe, thanks for joining us tonight. We'll be right back.

(...)

BRON: CNN.COM

quote:

---

Op maandag 26 januari 2004 11:55 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Brandy, Chaka Khan, M.C Hammer, Lori Ali, Vanilla Ice, Karl Malone, Nicole Ritchie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Mario Van Peebles, Beyonc'e, Warren G, 50 Cents, and Wron G ( Dr.Dre's, and Warren G`s uncle)

---

quote:

---

SECRET ROOM SENDS JACKO INTO A PANIC

Oh, BOY . . . things are NOT going well for Michael Jackson! The beleaguered star accidentally locked himself in a panic room -- and panicked!
Jacko, who's vowed he'll never return to his "violated" Neverland ranch, is leasing a huge 16-bath BevHills mansion and was alone when he discovered it had a panic room -- a secure room where the rich and famous can take refuge if an intruder invades.

Michael went inside, started fooling around with some controls -- and the door suddenly slammed shut!

He tried button after button but it wouldn't open. Michael FREAKED and started screaming for his staff -- getting more and more desperate with each claustrophobic second.

Finally he found a compartment with a phone inside and dialed his head security man, in near-hysteria as he explained his predicament.

But when the guy arrived on the scene, he realized he couldn't open the door without a code! So Michael was trapped inside for another 45 minutes until he was released by a staffer from the security company -- shaking, soaked with perspiration and scared half to death!!

---

quote:

---

Op zondag 25 januari 2004 22:27 schreef Iwan1976 het volgende:

[..]

Als, als, als... laten we ons bij de feiten houden. Je bent niet de eerste die met open ogen is gevallen in de valkuil die propaganda heet. Kijk de geschiedenis er nog maar eens op na... nog geen 60 jaar geleden, wat zeg ik... nog geen jaar geleden was er ook iemand die de media bespeelde met z'n leugens...

---

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 27 januari 2004 12:24 schreef Copycat het volgende:
En de National Enquirer doet er weer een smeuïg schepje bovenop. Gelieve in te nemen met een flinke korrel zou, lijkt me.
[..]

---

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 27 januari 2004 13:11 schreef PimD het volgende:

[..]

Ik zie de nieuws waarde hiervan niet echt Ik denk dat iedereen wel in paniek zou raken als ie zichzelf per ongeluk insluit en er niet meer uitkan...

---

Een beetje verstrooiing op zijn tijd lijkt mij in het showbizz deel niet ongepast...

Ik snap het niet daar als je regelmatig door de roddelbladen achterna wordt gezeten, dan zoek je toch je lotgenoten op, en dan maak je een potje waar je een paar miljoen dollar in stopt. En daarmee huur je de beste prive-detectives van het land en de beste apparatuur en die laat je de grootste rotte appels van de roddelpers 24 uur per dag achter na zitten en geheid dat die roddelmensen dingen doen die het daglicht niet kunnen verdragen. (misschien duurt het een jaar, maar op een dag gaan ze over de schreef, gewoon geduld hebben)
En dan wacht je tot je heel veel schokkend materiaal hebt over die roddelpers en dan breng je dat 1 voor 1 uit op een website (als je dit nog goed aanpakt kan je dan nog winst maken op je website ook en de kosten terug verdienen die je hebt uitgegeven aan die prive-detectives en apparatuur).
Als de roddelpers denkt dat je het schokkenste alweer gepubliceerd hebt, dan gooi je er nog wat rotters op je website over die roddelpers.
Je moet die gasten gewoon met hun eigen middelen bestrijden en als je maar genoeg geld hebt, dan maak je ze helemaal gek (en terecht)

Verder sporen die ouders van die kinderen ook niet, want welke ouder brengt ze kind nou naar een volwassen mafkees ookal heeft hij geen slechte bedoelingen, die ouders moeten dus door de rechter op een ouder-cursus gegooid worden, want het komt mij een beetje op me over dat die ouders niet van hun kinderen houden.

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 27 januari 2004 13:33 schreef JohnDope het volgende:

En dan wacht je tot je heel veel schokkend materiaal hebt over die roddelpers en dan breng je dat 1 voor 1 uit op een website.
Als de roddelpers denkt dat je het schokkenste alweer gepubliceerd hebt, dan gooi je er nog wat rotters op je website over die roddelpers.
Je moet die gasten gewoon met hun eigen middelen bestrijden en als je maar genoeg geld hebt, dan maak je ze helemaal gek (en terecht)

---

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 27 januari 2004 13:31 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Zijn dat gronden waarop jij iemand veroordeelt voor seksueel misbruik van kinderen?

---

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 27 januari 2004 13:37 schreef Copycat het volgende:

[..]

Deze wraaktheorie loopt denk ik mank op het punt dat de roddelpers ansich niet uit mensen bestaat waar de roddelbladenlezers graag wat over willen lezen.
Zijn ze niet bekend/interessant genoeg voor.

---

quote:

---

Op dinsdag 27 januari 2004 14:02 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Het balkon-incident was een grote fout die hij ook toegegeven heeft. Dat wil nog niet zeggen dat hij geen geschikte ouder is. Er is in het geval van MJ gewoon geen vergelijkingsmateriaal om zijn gedrag te beoordelen. Het is niet eerlijk om hem te beoordelen aan onze levensstandaard want zo'n leven heeft MJ nooit gehad.

Het dragen van maskers enzo gebeurt alleen in nabijheid van perscamera's aangezien Debbie Rowe (de moeder van de kinderen) dat aan Michael heeft gevraagd. Een bescherming dus totdat ze oud genoeg zijn.

Je hoeft het er niet mee eens te zijn, maar jij zit dan ook niet midden in die situatie. De angst dat die kinderen iets wordt aangedaan door derden is toch echt niet zo heel erg vergezocht, lijkt me. Of dit zal helpen is de vraag, maar het is hun eigen keuze om toch iets te doen. Ik zie het probleem niet.

---

Iemand als Madonna is even beroemd als MJ, maar heeft wel een gewoon gezin en een redelijk gezonde manier gevonden om haar kinderen groot te brengen.

Let wel, ik zeg niet dat MJ uit narigheid die kinderen iets aan zal doen. Maar wel dat ie zelf waarschijnlijk door zijn verleden zo verknipt is, dat het geen kwaad kan om eens goed te kijken of hij wel de juiste persoon is om kinderen op te voeden. Dat zou bij iemand die minder rijk en beroemd is ook gebeuren bij dit soort gedrag.

quote:

---

Ex-vrouw wil kinderen Jackson terug.

Michael Jackson is niet de biologische vader van zijn eerste twee kinderen. In het dossier van de rechtszaak tegen het popidool staat dat de ex-echtgenote van de king of pop Debbie Rowe zich kunstmatig heeft laten insemineren door een anonieme spermadonor voordat ze het leven schonk aan zoon Prince Michael jr. en dochter Paris. Het verklaart de lichte huidteint van het kroost, die door Wacko Jacko wel zo chic werd bevonden.

De 41-jarige Rowe deed de schokkende onthulling in de verhoren die aan de misbruik-rechtszaak voorafgingen: Ik heb geen enkele informatie over de identiteit van de spermadonor van beide kinderen, omdat het zaad anoniem is verkregen van een spermabank met een vertrouwelijke overeenkomst.

De bekentenis van zijn ex-echtgenote Rowe veegt Jacksons lang bevochten bewering dat de kinderen zijn natuurlijke nakomelingen zijn van tafel.

Debbie Rowe heeft bovendien verklaard dat zij de volledige voogdij wil krijgen over de twee kinderen en Michael volledig buitenspel zal zetten. Zij heeft jurisch het recht de kinderen op te eisen als zij vindt dat hun welzijn in gevaar is. Rowe zegt ontevreden te zijn met de opvoeding van haar kinderen. Zo vindt ze het belachelijk dat ze in het openbaar maskers moeten dragen, niet met leeftijdsgenootjes mogen spelen en niet naar school gaan, omat ze thuis les krijgen.

Het popidool trouwde in november 1996 met de joodse Debbie, de assistente van zijn dermatoloog. In februari 1997 werd hun zoon Prince Michael jr. geboren, die vernoemd is naar Michaels opa, terwijl ruim een jaar later in april 1998 hun dochter Paris Michael Katherine werd geboren. Hun huwelijk werd een jaar later alweer ontbonden. Wie de moeder van het derde kind van Michael Jackson Prince Michael II is onduidelijk, maar er wordt gesproken dat hij is verwerkt bij een draagmoeder.

De 45-jarige popster, die terechtstaat voor seksueel misbruik van een 12-jarige jongen, heeft de zinspelingen dat hij niet de biologische vader van de kinderen zou zijn in een interview betwist. Officiële papieren tonen echter aan dat hij en Rowe in januari 1996 een draagmoederschapovereenkomst zijn aangegaan waarvoor zij naast een geldbedrag van 6 miljoen Engelse pond ook een villa in Beverly Hills ter waarde van 1,6 miljoen Engelse pond, een auto, kleding en juwelen kreeg. Hun huwelijk dat negen maanden later plaatsvond, was een schijnvertoning met als enige doel zijn vaderlijke rechten veilig te stellen.

Bij hun scheiding heeft Rowe een enorm geldbedrag gekregen om helemaal afstand te doen van haar kinderen. In die overeenkomst staat ook de genoemde welzijn-bepaling, waarmee ze haar kinderen weer kan opeisen.

Rowe is momenteel bang dat zijn vermogende en invloedrijke vrienden Michael Jackson zullen helpen de kinderen naar het buitenland te vliegen.

---

quote:

---

Op woensdag 28 januari 2004 15:01 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Helemaal als je kijkt dat dit bericht allang is gepost en ook reeds weer is weerlegt door Debbie Rowe.

---

quote:

---

Fox News: 7 additional search warrants just issued to phone companies........1/30

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 02:36 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

[..]

Eea mbt het onderzoek inzake de aanklacht van Janet Arvizo dat MJ haar/haar zoon dag en nacht telefonisch lastig viel.

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 02:38 schreef milagro het volgende:

Dat is makkelijk na te trekken, lijkt me, dus zou die moeder dan zo dom zijn om dat te verzinnen?

---

Nog een aanvulling op mijn vorige post:

quote:

---

It seems like they were re-occuring (call, hang up, call back, hang up, etc, etc..). And at all hours of the night. That would lay the ground for the harassment claim.

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 02:41 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

[..]

Dat weet ze wel neem ik aan (en anders haar adviseurs)

Nog een aanvulling op mijn vorige post:
[..]

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 02:43 schreef milagro het volgende:

tja..dan hangt-ie

---

In de zaak van haar zoon hebben ze die telefoonoverzichten niet nodig lijkt me, misschien heeft zij ook aangifte gedaan?

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 03:02 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

[..]

Misschien, volgens Janet Arvizo heeft MJ haar:
1- telefonisch lastiggevallen
2- gegijzeld op Neverland
3- al haar meubelen/eigendommen gestolen (io van etc.)
4- bedreigd (io van etc.)

In de zaak van haar zoon hebben ze die telefoonoverzichten niet nodig lijkt me, misschien heeft zij ook aangifte gedaan?

---

en waarom zou MJ al haar spullen stelen
en die gijzeling? wanneer heeft dat plaats gevonden en heeft ze direct daarna aangifte gedaan ( voor misbruik zoon).

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 03:10 schreef milagro het volgende:

hoezo niet nodig bij de zaak van haar zoon?

---

quote:

---

en waarom zou MJ al haar spullen stelen

---

quote:

---

en die gijzeling? wanneer heeft dat plaats gevonden en heeft ze direct daarna aangifte gedaan ( voor misbruik zoon).

---

quote:

---

Victim Held Hostage at Neverland

Michael Jackson held his alleged molestation victim and his family hostage at his Neverland ranch! A 50-plus-page affidavit - to be unsealed at Jacksons January 9 arraignment - claims that the cancer-stricken boy and his worried mother "werent allowed to leave Neverland."

And the "hostage" situation culminated in the moms dramatic late-night plea to a sympathetic Jackson employee "We need to get out of here" - followed by an escape.

The mother has insisted to officials that she and her children were held hostage for several days at Neverland sometime after the February airing of the Martin Bashir documentary, in which Jackson and the victim spoke about sharing the singers bedroom, according to a source close to the case.

"The family maintains they were held against their will."

"It was an odd situation to begin with - the mother staying at another house on the property and the victim and his brother sleeping in Michaels bedroom.

"When the mother grew suspicious of Michaels clandestine activities with her older son, tensions came to a flashpoint.

"The affidavit states that the mother was especially distressed when she was told Michael had been serving wine in a soda can to her gravely ill son!"

In the affidavit, the boy says Michael called the drink "Jesus Juice," said the close source.

"The mother claims in the affidavit the family wasnt allowed to leave the property without an escort and they were followed closely by Neverland employees throughout the day while on the property. Its apparent that she believed it was a hostage situation, and it got to the point where it reached a crisis level."

An insider disclosed: "After the mother was told by her some that Michael had been giving him wine to drink, she blew her stack. She had angry words with Michael.

"Ultimately, she decided the family needed to leave."

"But the mother told investigators that Michael wouldnt let her leave. He told her and the children: You cannot leave here.. He may have been afraid they might say damaging things about him.

"According to the mother, they were prisoners on Jacksons vast estate! Doors were locked, and security was warned not to let them go."

"Finally, after 11 0clock one night, the panicked mother approached the Neverland house manager and said, We need to get out of here, " the close source revealed.

"The house manager agreed to help the mother and her children get off the 2,700 acre ranch.

"The manager said he needed to speak to someone in the security detail first. He returned a few minutes later and instructed the mother to get her children and their belongings together quickly.

"As soon as this was done, the manager loaded the family into a vehicle and drove them 100 miles to their home in Los Angeles himself."

"From the mother claims in the affidavit, you got the impression it was similar to a prison break.

"Since the incident, the house manager who helped the family flee the ranch has parted ways with Michael Jackson and Neverland."

"He has also been interviewed by investigators and is cooperating with them.

"If they can amass enough evidence it is possible police officials could charge Jackson and other members of his organization with illegal detention."

Another insider associated with the investigation told The Enquirer:

"As part of the child molestation case against Jackson, the Santa Barbara district attorney will show that he waged an elaborate campaign behind the scenes against the alleged victim and his family."

"They believe evidence will show that Jackson knows he was guilty and too actions showing that guilt."

"They believe he literally kept the family hostage at Neverland. This will come back to haunt him at a trial."

The insider added: "Its really sad. The boy and his family went in with love and came out with fury."

"It wasnt until about 3 ½ months ago that the boy was interviewed by the police and told them his whole story."

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 03:26 schreef milagro het volgende:
Mijn hemel, als die 'house manager' de waarheid spreekt..(waarom zou hij liegen ) dan ziet het er niet best uit voor MJ.

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 31 januari 2004 03:29 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

[..]

Kom anders even hier lezen: http://boards.courttv.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=62

---

en de quote van die Firpo Carr over de lading vh woord 'share'

.. "sharing a bed is like sharing a comb, you're not using it at the same time"

quote:

---

Some Damaging Details in Jackson Case

January 30, 2004 - 08:14 ET

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Michael Jackson has been charged with seven counts of child molestation and according to a new report in "Vanity Fair," a long and detailed article, there are some damaging details to support those charges.
"Vanity Fair's" special correspondent Maureen Orth has followed Jackson's legal problems all the way back to 1993.

She's written extensively on the topic.

She's our guest here now on AMERICAN MORNING.

Nice to see you again.

Welcome back here.

MAUREEN ORTH, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, "VANITY FAIR": Thank you.

Thank you.

HEMMER: One of the things you make quite clear in your piece is going back to 1993 you allege that there are similarities between the case that was settled out of court and the case that right now is gathering steam in Santa Barbara.

Those similarities are what, did you find?

ORTH: Well, just start with the physical types of both boys. They're both the same age, 13. They look a lot alike. When their parents came to the ranch or their families came to Neverland, the mothers were always put aside. It was only the boys that were allowed in the bedroom, not the sisters, with Michael Jackson.

He basically tries to sort of insert himself in weak families between the mother and the father. He, in both cases, tried to put his own attorneys in custody battles between the parents. It just -- and then the worst part, really, is that it's alleged in this case, and it was before, as well, is that he sort of keeps the underwear of boys in that...

HEMMER: So this is the allegation -- these are the details that you allege that you have found out recently. It may be one thing to repeat similar patterns, but it's another thing to make that jump to child molestation.

Is there anything that supports that right now, based on the reporting you've come up with at this point? ORTH: Well, basically, if you -- the last case had more than one boy and there were other people who were paid off. There's a massive, huge attack machine that goes into effect when these allegations...

HEMMER: What do you mean?

ORTH: Well, for example, last time there were members of the South Central L.A. gangs that were brought up to Neverland armed. This time there's the Nation of Islam. These are sort of tactics of intimidation so that other people don't come forward or that Neverland employees don't speak.

HEMMER: Because that, it comes, I come back to my same question, though. Where is this taking us in terms of child molestation...

ORTH: I think what you...

HEMMER: ... and proving this?

ORTH: Well, that is for the court to do. But there are over 400 witnesses from last time. There are people that -- in my article, I talk about people who have been paid off. I talk about a lot of the attack -- you know, it's witnesses who have been interviewed, it's people who, one of the prosecutors told me that they had found special friends for him going back 10 years before 1993. I mean I'm not here to be the prosecutor. I'm here to be a reporter on his life and how he surrounds himself with children.

HEMMER: One of your sources, Myung Ho Lee, was a former business partner, a former business advisor...

ORTH: He was his top business advisor and his sister was the legal officer of his corporation.

HEMMER: No longer works with Michael Jackson, right?

ORTH: No.

HEMMER: Was there bad blood between these two?

ORTH: They had a, there was a civil suit between them in Myung Ho Lee got a bunch of, really, I guess, he collected several million dollars. However, he has all the financial records. I mean he just isn't making allegations. He has paper to back it up. You know, "Vanity Fair" does not go into print on spurious allegations. We have a very thorough fact checking process.

HEMMER: What do you say to those who contend that there is such a massive security detail at the Neverland Ranch that Michael Jackson cannot have private time with young boys or girls or...

ORTH: Oh, that is absurd.

HEMMER: Absolutely absurd?

ORTH: Yes, because his entire bedroom is so completely alarmed that there is tremendous security all over Neverland. But...

HEMMER: What do you mean alarmed?

ORTH: Within -- if you enter the door to the hallway that goes to the bedroom, a huge alarm sounds to Michael Jackson in his room. It is so loud that it can be heard when the shower is running. So there are electric eyes all over the residence of Neverland. Everything is surveilled in every part and he knows anybody who's approaching within 10 feet. And nobody else gets to go in there except one maid to clean up.

HEMMER: I have read your article. It's very long. It's very detailed.

What have you found out about this case that details directly Michael Jackson and possibly links for the current accuser?

ORTH: I don't understand the question.

HEMMER: Well, there is an allegation in your piece that leads to alcohol...

ORTH: Oh, yes.

HEMMER: ... and wine that was given to...

ORTH: Well, one of the allegations of a boy is that he was given wine, also shown pornography on the Internet and in magazines. And on, two of the counts are about providing an intoxicating agent. And I have eyewitnesses saying that Michael Jackson regularly pours white wine into soda cans. That's Jesus juice. Red wine is called Jesus' blood. And these boys were given this wine. And I also have an incident in 1998 when one of his Japanese partners and -- they had announced a big business deal. And he had taken that boy's, that man's 13-year-old son to an amusement park and allegedly he was also given Jesus juice and it blew the whole deal.

HEMMER: The defense attorneys are saying that people are just after money from Michael Jackson. In the short time we have left...

ORTH: This case...

HEMMER: This case what?

ORTH: This case is not about money because this boy is a cancer victim of stage four who is in danger of death. There's no way you should go through the criminal justice system if what you're after is money.

HEMMER: My question is does anyone know how much money Michael Jackson has at this point?

ORTH: He doesn't have -- he certainly hasn't got very much in terms of cash flow. He has very valuable assets. But he's been, he's in debt over $200 million.

HEMMER: Maureen Orth.

The article is in "Vanity Fair."

Thanks for sharing with us today.

ORTH: Thank you.

HEMMER: Soledad.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The article clearly damaging to Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion.

But what about legally?

Senior CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin joins us this morning.

You've read the article.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I sure have.

O'BRIEN: It's incredibly well reported and detailed. But legally, are there any bombshells in there that you think the prosecutors could run with?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. There are, if they can duplicate Maureen's reporting. I mean it is, obviously, a different standard. It's a different kind of research. Just, for example, the similarities between the '93 incident and the current incident, just one detail that jumped out at me is that the accusers say Michael Jackson had the same nickname in both of them, Rubba, R-U-B-B-A. That is the kind of thing that prosecutors could use to show a pattern.

Also, a very important difference now than in '93 is that the laws have changed. In those days, you couldn't use prior uncharged conduct to prove the current conduct in the case. Now, because of changes in the law because of all the priest scandals, the prosecutors can use the '93 incident to prove the 2003 incident. A very important difference.

O'BRIEN: In the article, and we just heard Maureen and Bill talking about it, as well, Jesus juice versus Jesus' blood, meaning white wine versus red wine, and she says there's another completely unrelated incident, apparently, of another man whose son had a similar experience.

Could that have an impact on this case?

TOOBIN: It could. That is such an unusual kind of behavior, you know, pouring wine into soda cans, calling it Jesus juice, calling it Jesus' blood. If prosecutors can show that's a pattern, they could introduce several witnesses to make the current charge that much more believable. Again, if it stands up in court and if they have witnesses to say it, totally devastating evidence.

O'BRIEN: A lot of the information, and some of the most devastating, I think, comes from, as Maureen just said, a former legal advisor and her sister -- his sister, who worked with Michael Jackson.

Your expectations they will be on the stand?

TOOBIN: Not clear. Some of the financial stuff, while it's certainly interesting, is probably not that directly relevant to this charge. Some of the other stuff in the article not -- like his, perhaps, prior drug or alcohol problems, probably not relevant to these charges. But nothing in that article is good for Michael Jackson. And, you know, what's interesting is we've heard a lot from Jackson advisors and Jackson lawyers. It's interesting to hear from another perspective.

O'BRIEN: Jeff Toobin, as always, thanks.

TOOBIN: OK.

O'BRIEN: Appreciate it.

---

[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door Cosma-Shiva op 31-01-2004 04:41]

quote:

---

accusers say Michael Jackson had the same nickname in both of them, Rubba, R-U-B-B-A.

---

quote:

---

Op zondag 1 februari 2004 00:24 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

Ik post daar nu al een poosje en ik dacht in eerste instantie te maken te hebben met mensen die in waren voor een goede discussie, maar de meerderheid daar is maar al te graag aan het Jackson-bashen.

---

Onder welke naam post je?

Mbt dat artikel, ik ken die vrouw niet die het geschreven heeft, maar dat verhaal van die kidnap gaat al heel lang, en ik vind geen andere bron als die hierboven (ookal wordt het ook op newssites gemeldt, maar ook niet meer dan dat).

Wat ik bedoelde te zeggen, van die telefoongesprekken, de moeder zegt te zijn lastiggevallen (etc.) dus ik vermoed dat zij misschien aangifte heeft gedaan (heeft ze ook gedaan van die kidnap), aangezien ik het nut van de telefoonlijsten niet zie mbt het vermeende misbruik van G.

quote:

---

Op zondag 1 februari 2004 02:58 schreef Cosma-Shiva het volgende:

Wat ik bedoelde te zeggen, van die telefoongesprekken, de moeder zegt te zijn lastiggevallen (etc.) dus ik vermoed dat zij misschien aangifte heeft gedaan (heeft ze ook gedaan van die kidnap), aangezien ik het nut van de telefoonlijsten niet zie mbt het vermeende misbruik van G.

---

Ik heb medelijden met die moeder, want ik vermoed dat ze depressief is en in de loop der tijd in haar eigen leugens is gaan geloven, gesterkt door de DA, haar advocaat en de media. Ze heeft toegegeven in het verleden al vaker last gehad te hebben van psychische problemen. Ik hoop dat zij en de kinderen opgevangen worden door een goede psychiater als MJ wordt vrijgesproken.

En het lijkt me ook verstandig dat MJ hulp zoekt. Hij vertoont namelijk ook alle tekenen van een depressie, iets wat m.i. samenhangt met zijn huidziekte. Ik kan me vergissen, maar ik heb zo'n gevoel dat hij erg eenzaam en ongelukkig is.

quote:

---

Joining us now from Los Angeles is Geraldine Hughes, who was Rothman's legal secretary during that case. She is the author of the upcoming book "Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations."

All right, I want to walk through this, Ms. Hughes. I want to be very specific. All right, you contend that the boy's father, Dr. Evan Chandler, was behind this whole thing and that Jackson did not molest the boy. Is that correct?

GERALDINE HUGHES, "REDEMPTION" AUTHOR: That is absolutely correct.

O'REILLY: And you base that on what?

HUGHES: Well, basically, I was on the inside. So I was able to witness behaviors. I was able to witness what was going on the inside. I knew from the very onset of the allegation that Michael Jackson was absolutely innocent and that it wasn't a case...

O'REILLY: All right, now give me one -- your biggest convincer. You've got millions of people watching you right now.

HUGHES: Okay.

O'REILLY: All right? The biggest reason you felt Jackson was innocent was?

HUGHES: I guess, if I were to give one -- there were a lot -- but I will try and pull one. Basically, it was -- I actually recall the letter that went to Chandler, where he was advised about how to report child molestation by using a third party without liability to a parent. And that was like three weeks prior to the actual launching of the allegations.

O'REILLY: All right, now Ms. Hughes, if I am a parent, and my child is molested, all right, I immediately go to my attorney for advice. If my attorney advises me to take a certain course of action, as Dr. Chandler's did, all right, because you worked for the man...

HUGHES: Right.

O'REILLY: ...all right, why would that mean that this didn't happen?

Why wouldn't this be just the methodical, orderly way to place the complaint?

HUGHES: I guess if that was the only thing I had that I could say made me believe that, you would probably be right and I would probably look into it further based on your view. But there's many occasions...

O'REILLY: All right, but I asked you for the big gun. And the big gun hasn't convinced me. Give me something else.

HUGHES: Well, okay -- well, basically, it's -- my contention is that it was an elaborate -- elaborate, meaning it was multifaceted. Multifaceted means I can throw you one thing and it's really not going to matter until you pull it all together. Minus physical evidence, you have to look at the whole picture. You can't just -- one thing is not going to do it for you.

O'REILLY: All right.

HUGHES: But I will say this. I will say this. We have the finest police, law enforcement agency in the nation. There were four police agencies that went looking for evidence to corroborate with the little boy, and they found nothing. That really should be your biggest thing right there.

O'REILLY: Well, here's what swayed me to disagree with you, and maybe you can put this in perspective for us. During the settlement hearings...

HUGHES: Okay.

O'REILLY: The father, Dr. Chandler, all right, and your boss presented a scenario whereby the 13-year-old boy would identify marks on Michael Jackson's body that nobody would have known about unless they had seen his intimate parts.

HUGHES: Right. Yes, okay.

O'REILLY: Now what say you, Madame?

HUGHES: I said did they bring him -- did they arrest him based on their findings? Because had he accurately described parts that only someone could have described if they had seen it, that would have been -- that was really what they were looking for, the mere fact that they didn't bring him up on charges after that. And Michael even said the only reason why...

O'REILLY: The boy -- after the $20 million changed hands, the boy then wouldn't testify. And that's how it went.

HUGHES: Well, that was before that. That was before that. That was before the settlement negotiations.

O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa. I will cede you one point, Madame. You're not making your case for me, I have to be quite honest with you. I'm not believing...

HUGHES: That's fine.

O'REILLY: ...you know, I'm not going to get it, Bill.

O'REILLY: Well, look, I mean I'm not -- if I'm on the jury and I'm listening to you, he's not exonerated. But I will tell you this -- I do believe that this Dr. Chandler, okay, wanted the money rather than the criminal prosecution. Instead of going to the authorities first and backing into the civil suit, he didn't. He went for the civil -- he wanted the money and then the criminal prosecution be damned. I do believe that. And that's wrong.

HUGHES: But we live in a state where you can have both. You can have criminal prosecution and the money.

O'REILLY: Now, but not then. Not yet. You could have.

HUGHES: Oh, then you could too.

O'REILLY: Now here's motivation you may be right about but...

HUGHES: He could have had both. He didn't have to go just for the one. And you tell me somebody molests your child, you're going to take money and not go after the prosecution?

O'REILLY: I wouldn't do it. I know people who would sell their children for $20 million. Ms. Hughes, we thank you very much for appearing.

HUGHES: Thank you.

O'REILLY: Thank you.

HUGHES: Yes.

O'REILLY: Thank you for appearing.

HUGHES: Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Leaks from the Michael Jackson trial paint a gruesome picture of life in Neverland:
Drawers full of boys' soiled underwear;
Photos of naked blond boys as young as seven;
Attempts to bribe cancer kid Gavin with promises to make him a film star in return for being nice in the Bashir documentary;
More than 100 boys sleeping over at Neverland in the last three years.

As Jackson is nearly broke and no more use to the music industry as a recording artist, it's unlikely he'll have the legal firepower to get off this time.

Michael Jackson has been interrupting court proceedings every 20 minutes or so for bathroom breaks so he can get his foundation make-up retouched.

---

quote:

---

NE reported that NoI had a tape of MJ admitting to Farrakhan that he had abused the alleged victim.

While investigating this case, NE came in contact with a former NoI member, with 20 years in the organization.

In meetings on 1/21 and 1/22, the man stated that he had a copy of the tape between MJ and Farrakhan where MJ says, in relation to the abuse, "I did it".

In a phone call with NE on 1/27, the informant says he is presently working out a deal to have himself and his family placed in a witness protection program, in exchange for turning the tape over to federal authorities. He says, "I fear for the lives of myself and my family".

He says,"The Nation has an audio-tape of Jackson admitting to Farrakhan that he sexually molested the young boy. The tape was made in December 2003, when Jackson secretly flew to Chicago's Mosque Maryam. On the tape Jackson was asked, 'Did you molest the boy?' Jackson responds, 'I did it' ", claims the source.

"I believe the Nation recorded Jackson without his knowledge - not to help out authorities, but to use it if needed to extort money from Jackson.

"In mid-December, select members of the FoI (Fruit of Islam) Security Detail were called to assemble early in the morning in a warehouse near Torrence, California. About 25 select members were briefed on 'the plan'. Several members of the NoI - including me - were promised $100,000 by the high-ranking members of the NoI for our work, but we had to be willing to do whatever was required. Soon afterwards, we loaded into about five SUV-type vehicles and drove to Mark Geragos' office, 20 miles away.

"High-level members of the Nation entered Geragos' office and met with Geragos privately while the remaining members waited outside. Inside, the members of the NoI offered their services of 'protection' to Jackson for a $5.5 million 'donation'. Jackson's people were told that if they didn't want to give the NoI a 'donation', their safety couldn't be guaranteed. After discussing the issue with Geragos, Jackson finally gave the NoI the $5.5 million 'donation'. The NoI deposited the money in one of their accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, where it can't be detected by the U.S. government" claims the source.

"Not only has the NoI required a donation from Jackson, but they are slowly taking over his Neverland Ranch."

Dr. Vibert White, a former member of the NoI and author of the book "Inside the Nation of Islam: A Historical and Personal Testimony by a Black Muslim" told the Enquirer that the intimidation tactics described by the source are not uncommon for the NoI.

"The NoI is highly militant. They will use intimidation by all means", said Dr. White, a professor at the University of Central Florida, who was appointed to a White House Commission in 1996.

"They will tape record, absolutely. Based on my experience, the NoI has probably isolated Michael - or they have an NoI member around him 24/7. And once the NoI is in, it is like hell to get them out. His involvement with the NoI will ultimately destroy Michael Jackson. What little reputation he has left will be irreparable"

NE calls to Geragos and NoI spokesperson Dora Muhammad were not returned, & therefore the NE was not able to confirm the source's claims with them.

---

...Also Friday [Feb 6 2004], Jackson issued a brief statement denying rumors he said recently surfaced that a "rift" has developed between himself, members of his family and the Nation of Islam, whose members have been providing him security.

"Let me state for the record, this is not true. There is no 'rift,'" Jackson said.

"If my friends love me as much as they've indicated, then they'd do me a great favor by not being so eager to air their personal concerns about me in the media, which will avoid causing me further embarrassment," he added.

BRON: MJEOL.COM

[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door Iwan1976 op 08-02-2004 08:43]

According to Reuters, Judge Rodney Melville has banned cameras from entering the courtroom on February 13th.

Despite much pressure from the mass media and the attorneys representing them, the Judge decided against having the hearing televised.

Also, Prosecutors now object to cameras being allowed despite previously claiming they would not oppose such a proposal.

The Judge's ruling "came on the same day that prosecutors, who previously said they would not oppose cameras for pre-trial hearings in the sensational case, filed court papers saying that they had changed their minds and would now object."

^{Judge Rodney Melville}

BRON: MJNI.COM

MJ said that he may come to the Grammy after parties cos he has been invited to mingle with her peers..not quite sure if he will attend the event itself...Geraldo was so excited to speak to MJ he forgot to ask about Janet ( I don't blame him). MJ is sick and tired of the folks claiming to be family friends speaking for him on the NOI crap. Lenard Mohammed is still with him. MJ said that the NOI is still his security but he uses different securities depending on the occassion. The NOI will have a limited role cos he will not be making public appearances alot, they will be used when he makes big appearances. He has known Farakkahna since he was 16 years old. MJ said that the DA is trying to break him that is why all these fabrications are out against him, he is a target.. A representative will be coming on Geraldo to speak for MJ tonight on Geraldo.

He said, Michael named the names of the people behind this and geraldo will to, later on tonight. Michael's new spokeperson says Michael is not going to have another financial summit, that he's been invited to some of the post grammies parties. He said, MJ is annoyed at all the "friends, family members" Speaking for him.

Geraldo said, the family knows Farakha since Michael was 16. And that Leornard wasn't going anywhere, and that NOI role will not be as active in security because MJ is not gonna make any big activities...ect.

As previously reported, on February 7th Geraldo Rivera talked about his phone conversation with the King of Pop and the case against Michael on At Large With Geraldo.

His show also contained guests; one of those who appeared was Jamie Masada, a comedy club owner who claims that as a family friend of the Accuser, he set up the first meeting with the boy and Michael Jackson.

When interviewing him, Rivera tries to clarify the exact involvement Masada had with the introductory meeting, "My impression has been throughout that you personally knew Michael Jackson, and made this introduction, are you saying that's not the story?" Masada replies, "No, it was not like that at all. I do not know Michael at all." Rivera then follows up, "You've never met Michael Jackson?" "I've never met Michael Jackson", responds Masada.

"In my conversation with Michael Jackson today, and with his new publicist Raymone Bain, they told me that he doesn't know who you (Masada) are, he doesn't know you, never met you, and that it was in fact, it was Vernée Watson-Johnson from the old Fresh Prince of Bel-Air series who introduced him through the Make A Wish Foundation." Masada replies, "No, it's not true."

Rivera later starts to get quite aggravated, "What I deplore though, are people who pretend to know Michael Jackson when they really don't." Masada then responds, "I never said I know Michael Jackson." Rivera continues, "But people say you introduced him (the Accuser) to Michael Jackson, Jamie, you admit that this is not true, that is a lie, you did not introduce the kid to Michael Jackson, you never spoke to Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson doesn't know you."

Masada throughout attempts to redirect the interview to discuss the Accuser's health, which he claims, is deteriorating. However, this has been disputed by attorney Russell Halpern, who is representing the Accuser's Father, and who recently provided a Judge in a separate case concerning custody with letters from a Doctor as well as letter from Deputies at the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office stating that the boy appeared healthy.

Rivera's persistent questioning started to unsettle Masada, and after he couldn't supply a name to who he had spoken to in Neverland to set up the meeting, Masada then asks, "Why you questioning all that?" Rivera quickly replies, "I'm questioning it because you've been making a lot of hay for the last few months as quote en quote "the man who introduced Michael Jackson to the kid who later accused him of molestation" and that's not true."

Rivera then takes a phone call from a nationwide known radio host in the US, Armstrong Williams, who had also spoken to Michael that day. Once Williams had finished, Rivera let Masada have a final response. "I don't know where, Geraldo, where you got your information." Rivera promptly interrupts, "From Michael Jackson and the people around him! Unlike you I spoke with Michael Jackson today."

Masada then speaks briefly about the Accuser's health once again before Rivera again interrupts, "It's (the topic) not about the kid. It's about the people who pretend. knowledge and association they do not posses."

^{Geraldo Rivera}

^{Jamie Masada}

BRON: MJNI.COM

During the eventful broadcast of At Large With Geraldo on February 7th, Armstrong Williams phoned in speaking on behalf of Michael Jackson, after speaking to the King of Pop earlier in the day. He and Geraldo Rivera discussed the people in Michael's life, the case, and Michael himself.

His phone call came immediately after Rivera had given his other guest Jamie Masada some tough questions, and had stated that the comedy club owner was a liar. (For more information on this particular part of the show click here)

"I have been a critic of Michael in a very constructive way, but there are so many people running around claiming they're close to Michael, claiming they introduced him to different kinds of people. Like you, (referring to Rivera) I spoke with Mr. Jackson earlier today at length, he has no idea who this guy (Masada) is, has never spoken to him in his life, and obviously you have outed this guy".

Armstrong continues, "Michael Jackson is just sick and tired of people running around speaking in his name and telling untruths. This man is under a lot of pressure, he has some serious allegations against him, and he wants people out there speaking for him who really knows him, and this Jamie Masada does not know Michael Jackson. That's why he's struggling with you on the air because you've outed him."

The radio host then goes on to talk about the media's role in this case, "the media is willing to give people like Masada credibility because they assume he is close to Michael Jackson. I think we all need to take a step back and say look, yes we've criticised him in the past, but he is innocent until proven guilty, we should be mindful of the sources we put on the air, and make sure that their credibility is intact before we give them air time to run around making these allegations about Michael Jackson which you've just shown to be absolutely not true."

Rivera and Williams then discussed how Michael seemed to them when each of them spoke with the King of Pop. "My take on Michael today was he was very depressed, almost distressed by what's happened, he did not sound well to me, how did he sound to you?" Rivera posed the question to Williams, who responded, "Well you know what Geraldo, I got a different Michael Jackson, he was very upbeat, he was spirited, he had a lot of strength, he said he was in charge, he was running things, for the first time he has a publicist that he trusts, Raymone Bain, he's realised a lot of people around him have exploited him, he's taken back control of his life because he feels it's his credibility and his reputation, his life that is on the line and he's gonna start running things since he's the best person to do it."

Williams ends his phone conversation with Rivera by talking about what he thinks may happen in the future, "I think some heads are gonna roll, I think he's bringing in the new management team, I think you may be in shock about some of the decisions he's probably made for what's in his best interests in the future that relates to these allegations against him."

^{Armstrong Williams}

BRON: MJNI.COM

In his latest The Pop of King column, published in the 13 February issue of Entertainment Weekly, Stephen King tackles the King of Pop's case, concluding with "What I'm asking is whether this is a country where a peculiar person such as Michael Jackson can get a fair shake and be considered innocent until proven guilty..."

To contact EW with your comments on King's column, please email them at ew_letters@ew.com.

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

---

Op maandag 9 februari 2004 21:48 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

En wat heeft dat met de zaak te maken?

Ik vind je trouwens wel heel stoer!

---

Ik ben niet van de school "als puber MOEST je". Zeker niet als het ook niet waar is

quote:

---

Op zondag 8 februari 2004 10:51 schreef Diorchanel het volgende:
Geraldo got to speak to MJ from his bedroom. He said that MJ was sleepy. He asked MJ how he was feeling, MJ said that he was "depressed".

---

Hopelijk beseft hij wel dat hij niet depressief is door deze rechtszaak, maar dat het een andere oorzaak heeft.

"I love you all. I thank you for your love and support from around the world. I love my fans ... you are my friends, very loyal to me. And thank you for everything you've done. I'm working on something very special at the moment. God bless you. I love you. "

Bron: Overal te vinden op MJ fan sites

quote:

---

DA MAY CHARGE TEAM JACKO OVER MOM'S 'KIDNAP'


February 10, 2004 -- The district attorney prosecuting Michael Jackson on child-molestation charges is considering bringing obstruction and witness-tampering charges against two of Jacko's handlers, sources told The Post.
Jackson was arrested in November and charged the next month with molesting a 12-year-old cancer victim at his Neverland Ranch.

Santa Barbara County DA Tom Sneddon may seek to arrest Jackson insiders Frank Tyson and Vinnie Amen on charges they tried to hold the alleged victim's mother at Neverland after her son appeared last year with Jacko on a British TV documentary - holding The Gloved One's hand.

After the show was aired, a Los Angeles schoolteacher called a child-abuse hotline, sparking an investigation of Jackson by the Sensitive Case Unit of the L.A. Department of Children & Family Services.

Tyson and Amen may be charged with detaining the woman against her will while they tried to obtain passports for her, the boy and the rest of their family - purportedly to whisk them away to Brazil to prevent them talking to authorities, the sources said.

When that ploy failed, the pair allegedly duped - or forced - the boy's mother to sign a document saying Jacko never abused the child.

The statement is said to have scuttled the child-abuse investigation - the child-welfare agency and the LAPD-Wilshire Division found allegations that the child's mother neglected him and Jackson had sexually abused him to be unfounded.

Sources said Tyson and Amen have hired prominent New York lawyer Joseph Tacopina, who defended Abner Louima cop Thomas Wiese, to represent them.

Tacopina confirmed he's been retained and said Tyson and Amen "believe in Michael Jackson's innocence as they do in their own."

---

quote:

---

Op maandag 9 februari 2004 21:23 schreef kamagurka het volgende:
Ik heb nooit staan bodypoppe met een oranje lederen jas aan en een zilveren sok met witte handschoenen..
Ik heb nog nooit een noot van die jankaap goedschiks door mijn kneiter laten gaan, dus wat nou.. we waren allen MJ-fan. Het klootjesvolk ja, wat dacht dat het swingend was wat ie deed.
Het was een succesvolle zeikneus en nu is het een onsuccesvolle zeikneus. That's it.

---

Ten eerste ben ik het niet eens met de kwalificaties die je aan MJ toekent, maar dat is een kwestie van smaak en daar valt niet over te twisten.

Ik verbaas me voornamelijk over de laatste 2 woorden van je bericht: 'That's it.' Ik denk namelijk dat niks in dit leven zeker is, en zelfs daar twijfel ik aan.

quote:

---

"Shocking developments in the MJ case.

Our cameras are on the ground in Santa Maria."

"Two more boys have come forward to say that Jackson molested them, in the last year". The boys are unrelated to each other and unrelated to the present AV.

Allan Butterfield then reported that they reported the "same behavior" (on Jackson's part) as the present accuser, and that "police are now investigating these claims. This could be a huge bombshell", he said.

"The two boys live in the LA area", Butterfield said. It was stressed repeatedly throughout the discussion that LE is just "talking" to these boys, and the ultimate decision to move ahead on this "talking" will rest on the approval/agreement of the parents of these boys, and the decision by LE that these allegations are valid.

---

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/jackson-press-statement.html

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 01:59 schreef ilona-scuderia het volgende:
Ik weet dat het er hier heel serieus aan toe gaat, maar onderstaand filmpje is eigenlijk best wel grappig

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/jackson-press-statement.html

---

Vooral die slak op het laatst is leuk

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 19:13 schreef Moist het volgende:
Het is vast al ergens gezegd in een van de delen. Maar heeft Janet nou expres die commotie veroorzaakt om de aandacht af te leiden van haar broer?

---

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 19:35 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Sneddon bedoel je?

---

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 01:59 schreef ilona-scuderia het volgende:
Ik weet dat het er hier heel serieus aan toe gaat, maar onderstaand filmpje is eigenlijk best wel grappig

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/jackson-press-statement.html

---

Two wrongs don't make it right.

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 19:44 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Oh, en als je MJ 'Wacko Jacko' noemt, hoe noem je die moeder van Gavin dan wel niet? Die heeft in een gekkenhuis gezeten!

---

Michael Jackson is altijd al gek geweest .

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 12:01 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

Is daar al meer van bekend? Want volgens mij was de bron de National Enquirer die ze op CourtTV aanhaalden en dus verre van betrouwbaar.

---

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview With Dru Sjodin's Family; Michael Jackson Accuser's Father Speaks Out

Aired February 13, 2004 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KING: We'll take a break. And when we come back, the father of Michael Jackson's accuser. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: It's a great pleasure to welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, David. He's the father of the boy now accusing Michael Jackson of sexual molestation. We are not using, David's last name, because doing so could identify his son and CNN does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse. Also with us is Russell Halpern, he's David's attorney on child visitation and custody issues.

Now, David, what you want is to have a restraining order against you dropped, right? You cannot see your kids, is that it?

DAVID, FATHER OF BOY ACCUSING OF MICHAEL JACKSON: That's it. I haven't seen them at all since 2001.

KING: Three years.

DAVID: Yes.

KING: Why?

RUSSELL HALPERN, ATTY. FOR DAVID: Actually, what happened was that he was originally charged with spousal abuse and child abuse, and the court issued a restraining order. It was temporary, but his wife went to court and got another restraining order during a divorce proceedings. Unfortunately, he wasn't represented during the divorce proceedings and it went uncontested so that restraining order is still in effect and will in effect for at least another year unless we get it lifted.

KING: So, David, you did not, then, plead no contest to charges of child cruelty and spousal abuse.

HALPERN: I'm sorry, he's here to talk about how he feels about his child and...

KING: I want to find out why he doesn't see his child.

HALPERN: Well, he did enter a plea -- no contest pleas as you know in California is allowing the court to find him guilty in order to avoid going to trial, and the risks that go along with trials. So my advice, he did enter a plea of no contest to those on separate occasions with a plea bargain that he would not spend a day in jail. Otherwise if he had gone to trial it might have been a year in jail.

KING: What is your hope of seeing your kids, David?

DAVID: Just waiting to see if I could -- everything hasn't went my way so far.

KING: What has to happen?

HALPERN: Well, first, in March, we're going to have a hearing called an order to show cause, and that hearing we're going to present evidence that David is a good father. Part of the evidence we're going to present is a deposition that his wife had given during a JCPenney's lawsuit and in that deposition she was asked what his propensity for violence was and she said that she specifically asked, did he ever hit you? And she said no and then she elaborated by saying he was a wonderful husband, he had never touched her, he didn't have it in him to touch a woman and he had never touched the children, never as far as even spanking the kids.

KING: What is the reaction you have, David, to your son's accusations? What's your reaction?

DAVID: I can't have any reaction. I'm not there yet. I haven't spoke to my son.

KING: How did you feel when you heard? You had to have a feeling when you heard that your son is making an accusation.

HALPERN: That's a difficult question for him to ask a difficult question for him to answer, because there is a gag order to David because he may be a witness in that case and he is not to comment on anything to do with the Santa Barbara case. He can comment on how he feels about his children and about his own matter, but as how he reacts to the news of what happened in Santa Barbara, he can't.

KING: Was that because he would have knowledge of what happened in Santa Barbara? Why would he be a witness?

HALPERN: Well, I think he would probably be a witness, if anybody, he'd be a witness because he had knowledge as to the background concerning his ex-wife. He had knowledge concerning the background of this child, and that could be used by either side.

KING: Do you expect him to be a witness?

HALPERN: I actually believe that he will be called as a witness.

KING: I see. Do you know Michael Jackson?

DAVID: Yes.

KING: Do you like him?

DAVID: He's always been a real good friend, yes.

KING: So you're kind of tormented here.

DAVID: I don't know which way to go. I'm not there yet. I haven't spoke to my son. So I don't know if I have any feelings one way or the other.

KING: You have a son who has made the accusation who you love and miss.

DAVID: I don't even know that much.

KING: But you know he's made the accusation there wouldn't be a Santa Barbara case.

HALPERN: I'm sorry.

KING: Well, he's got to know that. That's like saying I don't know the earth is round.

HALPERN: That's true but you're putting him in a difficult position. He's been told by me and by other people not to talk about the Mr. Jackson or about the accusations at all. He came on the program today because he wanted to talk about how he feels towards his sons and other children and how he wants to see them again, but it's really difficult for him...

KING: So Jackson is off boards?

HALPERN: Definitely off boards.

KING: How many children do have, David?

DAVID: Three. Two boys and a girl. My boys are a year apart. David is the oldest. My boys are December 11 and 2nd, and that would be 13 and 14.

KING: You haven't seen any of them in three years?

DAVID: No.

KING: Do they contact you at all?

DAVID: No, they were told they couldn't contact me either.

KING: Do you ever go by and try to look for them?

DAVID: As a father that's pretty much what I do in my head all the time.

KING: Do you drive by the school?

DAVID: No, even though I've never been in trouble on this, I've never been accused of this before the accusations that she didn't make up, even something she didn't pick up in the case was so terrible, you know, I mean it was unheard of a father ever, you know, wanting to do things like this to their family that the court, which are designed to protect women that are going through these things and it's understandable what they're doing but if I went by or tried to find out any information on them, they give me an automatic year in jail.

HALPERN: During the time his case was pending his wife did make some accusations that he tried to contact one of the children and he almost went to jail that time.

KING: Just for contacting?

HALPERN: Yes, so he's leery of that and been following their orders to the letter of the law.

KING: Do you expect, Russell, to get this changed at the hearing?

HALPERN: Definitely so. I think it will be changed. What we're going to ask the judge to do in the beginning is to just allow supervised visits. We'll explain to the judge that we don't believe any of the accusations ever were true but even assuming that they were, it's not good for the child not, for all the children not to see their father. We're going to ask there be supervised visits and let that grow into a better relationship.

KING: You're not under a gag order, are you?

HALPERN: Well, that is a good question. I was...

KING: How would you be called?

HALPERN: That's a very good question. I received a letter from Mr. Sneddon claiming that I was a potential witness. I called Mr. Sneddon, and asked him how he thought that, and he said, well, maybe you could be an impeaching witness, discrediting other witnesses. I said well which witnesses would I discredit? He named his own witnesses. I said so are you telling me you're going to call me as a witness to discredit your own witnesses? Of course he didn't have a real answer for that. I also called Mr. Geragos' office so ask them if they thought I was a witness. They agreed with me, thank you, that there was not anything that I could say that would be legally admissible. I'm not a potential witness. I think it was an attempt by the prosecution not to defend my client any further in the press.

KING: But you have in the past indicated that you think the son may have invented these allegations at the behest of the mother.

HALPERN: No, I don't believe I ever said that. I was asked if that were a probability. I don't want to comment on that at this time because I'm sitting next to my client and Mr. Sneddon can interpret that as being authorized from him and I don't want to cause him any trouble.

KING: I understand. David, to have you been to Neverland?

DAVID: Yes.

KING: What do you want to say to your kids that might be watching.

DAVID: I want to say that I love them and I'm trying hard to see them and I've been trying since they've been taken away from me, and I just want them to know that I'm going to keep trying.

KING: You still love them and miss them?

DAVID: Yes, very much.

KING: How bad is this case going to get?

HALPERN: I don't think it's going to get that bad.

KING: No?

HALPERN: No, because the real issue is what's good for the children. In family court that's the central issue so the court is going to decide is it good for the children to keep the father permanently away from the children? I'm sure any reasonable court would say no.

KING: Do you expect the mother to complain a lot?

HALPERN: I do expect that very much so.

DAVID: The reason why I didn't plead in this case was because of my insurance.

KING: How bad is the Jackson case going to get?

HALPERN: Pardon me?

KING: How bad is the Jackson case going to get.

HALPERN: I'd like to comment on that more now but for the sake of my client...

KING: OK, let's make this agreement. When this is over you both come back. Thank you David, thank you Russell. David, we don't identify the last name because as we said, CNN will never identify alleged victims of sexual abuse and David's attorney, Russell Halpern. You're watching LARRY KING LIVE. Be right back.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/13/lkl.00.html

quote:

---

Op vrijdag 13 februari 2004 19:14 schreef schatje het volgende:
Janet Jackson is zo passé.

---

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 14 februari 2004 12:16 schreef TuuT het volgende:

Probeer je gewoon te provoceren of wat is het?

---

Nee, even serieus: de opmerkingen van Schatje c.s. hebben wel degelijk nut. Door de leugen/waarheid te benadrukken kun je de waarheid benaderen. Ik zeg expres benaderen, want de waarheid/leugen, het is maar net wat je wilt zien, zal nooit 100% boven tafel komen.

Een beetje provoceren op z'n tijd kan geen kwaad, maar je moet wel oppassen dat het geen truukje wordt. Je moet de 'werkelijkheid' van 2 kanten durven te bekijken.

Yesterday was another day in court for Michael Jackson's attorneys Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman, however the King of Pop himself did not attend.

The idea of yesterday's trial was to set a date for a future preliminary hearing, which would allow the Defence and Prosecution teams to display their evidence to Judge Rodney Melville, who would then decide whether or not there is in fact enough evidence to go to court.

However, (according to the Associated Press) this was not decided, and a date of April 2nd has been set to try once again to decide on a preliminary hearing date. The Judge expressed his desire to have this case on trial by the end of the year. All attorneys said they would be ready by December.

The reasons for the delay are believed to be that the attorneys are simply not ready. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon provided Mark Geragos with pages of evidence for review, and apparently is only halfway though turning over the material. Geragos said he would need time to review it all.

Benjamin Brafman "hinted there would be a need for hearings on "other serious issues" before a preliminary hearing could go forward. He did not elaborate."

The Judge was asked by the Defence to provide an exception to the gag order imposed on all participants, to respond to inaccurate information. "If one can believe the media, I've been fired and rehired five times since we were last here," Geragos said. "Mr. Brafman also has fielded numerous calls on this issue."

"We do not want in any way, shape or form to violate the gag order. But when it has to do with a client, when people are polluting the jury pool, we should be able to say something," Geragos said. A worry was also expresses by Geragos that potential witnesses were leaking information, therefore violating the gag order.

Despite resilient media pressure to unseal search warrant documents, the Judge decided they would remain sealed. However, edited versions may be released as early as next week.

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

---

ON HOLD: The judge in Michael Jackson's molestation case delaying a ruling on when to hold the preliminary hearing after the defense said it hasn't had enough time to review the prosecution's evidence.

BAD BANKROLL: Michael Jackson may be in serious financial trouble; the singer is expected to repay a $70 million loan to Bank of America Tuesday, but does not have the cash, according to the New York Times. Jackson's music manager has denied the report.

---

quote:

---

Op woensdag 11 februari 2004 23:31 schreef Iwan1976 het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben het niet helemaal met je eens. Er zit echter een kern van waarheid in je woorden, maar ik ben bang dat het overgrote deel van de mensen die dit lezen het niet wil/kan begrijpen.

Ten eerste ben ik het niet eens met de kwalificaties die je aan MJ toekent, maar dat is een kwestie van smaak en daar valt niet over te twisten.

---

quote:

---

Ik verbaas me voornamelijk over de laatste 2 woorden van je bericht: 'That's it.' Ik denk namelijk dat niks in dit leven zeker is, en zelfs daar twijfel ik aan.

---

Ik vind echter mensen die nog steeds als makke schaapjes achter deze slappe drol aanlopen net zo lachwekkend als de tepelstunt van zijn zus

According to FOX's Roger Friedman, information that was in a New York Times article by Sharon Waxman (which was then circulated across the world) about Michael Jackson's finances is "completely wrong".

Rumours have spread globally that Michael is facing bankruptcy and is in serious debt, however this has been denied by Michael's business manager Charles Koppleman, and Friedman also disagrees.

"Let's get a few things straight so that Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight and other outlets understand (Michael's) financial picture", said Friedman, "Originally, in 1999, there was a $200 million Bank of America loan. Sony guaranteed that against Jackson's 50 percent ownership with them in what is now known as Sony/ATV Music Publishing but called, the Beatles catalogue."

Friedman continues, "thanks to (his business advisors), another $150 million was added on last year. This money was used to pay all of Jackson's outstanding debts, including court judgments."

Apparently tomorrow, a huge sum of that loan will be paid back as planned, and according to Friedman, Michael "can rest easy". Michael's business advisors are said to have a plan to pay the money, "I've heard the plan. It's a good one", Friedman said.

It appears Michael's finances will be back to normal, as expected, very soon.

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

---

Op zaterdag 14 februari 2004 12:16 schreef TuuT het volgende:

[..]

Maar goed, daar gaat het hier helemaal niet om, maar waarom toch altijd die domme en vaak gemene opmerkingen van jou in die Jackson topics? Probeer je gewoon te provoceren of wat is het?

---

Over the weekend, a UK tabloid published photographs of the family at the center of the accusations against Michael Jackson. According to Fox News' Roger Friedman, the family was apparently under surveillance for several weeks and photographed surreptitiously.

"In fact, the pictures - marketed by Los Angeles freelance journalist and photo agent Alec Byrne for upwards of $300,000 - tell a markedly different story than the one told on every media outlet by the family's friend, Jamie Masada," wrote Friedman in his 17 February column. "Instead of a frail child clobbered by cancer and awaiting a kidney transplant, the boy is shown as quite robust. In one picture he's even shown standing with an automatic rifle at his side. In another, he's busy jumping a high fence and also chatting with friends."

Because of American laws regarding children and victims, domestic media outlets would have to block out the faces in order to run the pictures or the videos. European countries don't have the same regulations, making the pictures even more valuable there.

What isn't known yet, Friedman points out, is just how Judge Rodney Melville will greet this latest news in his case. Melville has instituted a fairly strict gag order among the case principles, extending all the way to Jay Jackson (the mother's boyfriend) and beyond. He may not be amused to see the London tabloid's spread.

BRON: MJNI.COM

US calypso singer and children's rights champion Harry Belafonte today rallied in support of the King of Pop, telling the Daily Telegraph: "Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty by the court of law."

"I cannot charge my colleague on the basis of media reports and television programs," said Belafonte, who became the first African-American man to win an Emmy award for his 1959 television musical special, Tonight With Harry Belafonte.

Belafonte lashed out at the US media for having an "insatiable appetite" for Jackson, while ignoring the plight of children who suffered as a result of US invasion of Iraq.

"This is travesty of journalism. It is inappropriate for the media to start asking what ifs and what abouts ... (concerning Jackson). What about the children who suffered in Iraq?" he asked.

Belafonte further heaped praise on Jackson, saying: "No single individual has had influence in the world like Jackson."

He noted that the star was the writer of the song We Are the World, which was performed by 45 US artists to raise money for famine stricken people in Ethiopia in the 1980s.

Belafonte said the US media was guilty of "false morality", over exposing the alleged charges facing Michael, while "some US catholic priests" had sexually abused many children in the US. Asked to describe Michael's character, Belafonte answered: "A gifted singer.''

BRON: MJNI.COM

quote:

FAMILY MATTERS: Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe hiring a retired judge to handle an unspecified family law matter that is believed to concern custody arrangements for the couple's two children.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 februari 2004 14:55 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Michael Jackson is in Aspen
[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

quote:

Film Jackson 'beste programma van 2003'
AMSTERDAM - De spraakmakende documentaire die de Brit Martin Bashir maakte over Michael Jackson is door de Britse Royal Television Society uitgeroepen tot beste televisieprogramma van 2003.

Jackson zegt in de film, waarin hij uitgebreid door Bashir wordt geïnterviewd, onder andere dat hij kinderen in zijn bed laat slapen. De Royal Television Society noemt de in februari vorig jaar in tal van landen uitgezonden documentaire, Living with Michael Jackson geheten, meeslepend en onthullend.

Jackson was woedend over de film, waarin Bashir in de voice-over zegt dat hij zich zorgen maakt over de manier waarop Jackson met zijn drie kinderen omgaat. Volgens Jackson had Bashir zijn vertrouwen geschonden.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 februari 2004 21:16 schreef TheGeneral het volgende:
Het ziet er misschien niet uit, maar is toch nodig...
Als hij gewoon over straat loopt komt IEDEREEN op hem af.. Dan kan ie niet meer normaal lopen..

quote:

Op donderdag 26 februari 2004 14:55 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:
Michael Jackson is in Aspen
[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 februari 2004 15:13 schreef TheGeneral het volgende:
Ik moet zeggen, ik had hem waarschijnlijk niet herkend als ie er zo bij zou lopen..

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 februari 2004 15:36 schreef muizekind het volgende:
dus...

quote:

'Wacko Jacko' zoekt hulp bij voodoo-dokter
AMSTERDAM - Michael Jackson (45) zou onder behandeling staan van een voodoo-dokter. The King of Pop zou de strijd aan hebben gebonden met zijn verslavingen aan alcohol en drugs (vooral medicijnen).




De Zuid-Amerikaanse 'arts' Alfredo Bowman, die beweert kanker te kunnen genezen, is in Aspen neergestreken om de popster te behandelen. Volgens een bron slikt Wacko Jacko een enorme hoeveelheid pijnstillers en is Bowman gevraagd de pijnen weg te nemen. "Dan heeft Michael geen pillen meer nodig."

Jackson en zijn kinderen wonen sinds begin februari in Aspen. Er zijn zeven aanklachten tegen hem gericht. Jackson zou ontuchtige handelingen hebben gepleegd met minderjarigen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 5 maart 2004 17:11 schreef matthijst het volgende:
In 2004 is het leuker om het af te kankeren en zwart te maken, dus doen ze dat....