Wednesday, November 14, 2007
First -- let me remind everyone that Diane Dimond was fired by Court TV immediately following the Not Guilty Verdicts in the 2005 Jackson trial.
Other than appearing on Nancy Grace's show to trash Jackson -- Dimond has not been seen on TV much - her career seems to be over. I will also say that Dimond's book was a flop -- and the rumor that she had a deal with Sneddon to gain exclusive access to take photos and footage of MJ behind bars -- well that's hearsay and also a moot point.....
As for Nancy Grace --who was able to launch her successful CNN show staring with the coverage of the Jackson trial -- she is loved by many and hated at the same time. Her reportage is so slanted -- it borders on criminal at times. That's just my opinion -- but there was a woman who killed herself after Grace made unfair accusations so I think that speaks volumes about Grace.
Also - just to set the record striaght about Nancy Grace's tactics -- she constantly referred to 2 books that. MJ had -- these books showing photos of boys were taken from MJ's ranch in 1993 and were held by Sneddon for 10 years to use as evidence. Grace had to know thay -- one thing she's not is stupid. But Grace reffered to these books repeatedly because it made for ratings and served her pro-prosuction agenda. What a shame that she is allowed to spew venom with no counter points being made against her. CNN should be more fair. That's just my opinion.
PS: I have the new copy of EBONY and Michael looks better than ever. What do they say? Looking good is the best revenge! MJ is a winner -- a man of
No one can stop his genius!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
However, there's a very "sticky" issue I've now brought up about SNEDDON in 2 interviews that will soon be coming out in the Santa Barbara News-Press and the Santa Barbara Independent.
In these articles I assert the following:
1) In my opinion Tom Sneddon is a racist.
2) Tom Sneddon knew that he had no case, Mesereau went to him prior to the trial and told him that the accusers had a past with J.C. Penny, therefore Sneddon wasted millions of taxpayer dollars trying a case he knew was bogus.
3) Tom Sneddon brought a criminal trial against Michael Jackson because he's a publicity hound; he just wanted the whole world to be watching him. If Sneddon won, and to try to assure this, Sneddon threw in every charge he could think of including the ridiculous conspiracy charges, then Sneddon's name would be up in lights in legal circles around the world.
4) Sneddon called movie star Chris Tucker a "boy" when Tucker was on the stand and the whole courtroom went silent. Later, Mesereau asked the jury what they thought about that "comment"and jurors said they were offended by it. I recall when Sneddon said "be a good boy" to Chris Tucker, and the whole courtroom went silent!
5) I have recently been flooded with e mails that make allegations against Sneddon and the DA's office in Santa Barbara, claiming the whole place is corrupt. I have tried to ignore these repeated claims, but last night I received some very interesting documentation from someone who claims to have been steam-rolled by Sneddon and others at the Santa Barbara DA's office.
In light of the new "look" the public is taking at DAs across the country, with Nifong being sent to jail and stripped of his power because of the bogus Duke Rape case, with the DA in Louisiana causing a huge protest over racial bias when nooses were hung under a tree in his jurisdiction and he charged only the black kids, not the while kids... well ...let's just say I'm taking a very close look at these new allegations against Sneddon and also am going back to some of the others who repeatedly claimed that Sneddon used "unfair practices," alleging that he abused his power as a DA.
Of course, I prove that Sneddon had an agenda in MJC, and I also assert that he was "working behind the scenes" with certain reporters (namely Diane Diamond) in order to convict MJ in the court of public opinion.
I'm still excited about doing book signings in Santa Barbara...but a part of me cringes to think what the DA will do. When Sneddon reads his local papers with explosive allegations from me, will he come to the book store to make trouble? Will he send cops to look for me to try to give me a speeding ticket or harass me? ?
Of course, I doubt it, and I certainly hope not.
But the thought has crossed my mind.
And then it occurred to me that suddenly, I know how Michael feels about Santa Barbara. I know why he won't return to Neverland, and I doubt he ever will. If I'm not comfortable staying in that county for just one weekend, I can only imagine how Jackson feels...he's been run out of his home.
If anyone has information about Tom Sneddon they would like to share, things that have not been mentioned in the news before, please write to me at : email@example.com
Thursday, November 1, 2007
I recently went on an Emmy Award-winning show, "It's Your Call" with Lynn Doyle. I went on to discuss the book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy and was told that there would be a half hour "debate" with an anti MJ person. WELL -- the woman who came on to fight with me, Dr. Carol Leiberman, is the same woman who filed a plea with the California Child Protective Services Agency, requesting that Michael Jackson's children be taken away from him!
This woman said she was a psychiatrist and repeatedly insisted that MJ's children were in danger. I asked her what made her think that SHE knew about Michael's children being in danger. She said it was her job to know and insisted that I didn't know anything about the law. I told her that I DO know the law and pointed out that she filed all these "charges" against MJ back in 2003 and nothing ever came of it...
Dr. Leiberman was dumbfounded. I also asked her how she could make an assessment of Michael Jackson when she is not HIS psychiatrist. In fact, it turns out that she doesn't even know the man! In my opinion, this shrink is just a publicity hound, similar to Gloria Allred -- yikes!
Like many others out there, Dr. Leiberman is a person with an agenda to "kill off" the career of MJ. By the way, the first thing that came out of her mouth on the show last week was: "the only conspiracy I see is a conspiracy you might with Jackson's people." She was implying that I was only trying to sell books.
What about the truth!??? Does that not count for anything with these MJ haters??? These people are so one-sided and they are out for his blood -- and why??
Because they want their own name up in lights, using the King of Pop to try to propel themselves into the spotlight...that's how I see it, and it's truly sickening. I will say this: have been accused of many things, but at least I know that everyone who actually has read my book knows that I'm sincere. I wrote this from my heart and I come from a place of integrity. People who read the book see that.
I'm hopeful that Michael knows about my new book, but can assure people that he has had no involvement with it -- whatsoever. In fact, I wish Michael would take a more active role and stand up for himself, and maybe even embrace this book, because the media is so biased against him!
People can do things to fight the negative public image the media machine keeps putting out there! I hear that Michael is planning to attend Jesse Jackson's 66th Birthday party in the near future. Jesse Jackson is on a crusade right now, talking about the unfairness in "who controls" the media and the need for more ethnic people to be a part of the media overall. So the crusade is a good one to follow, as it will benefit anyone who cares about the fairness in the media...whether it's Jackson related is not the only issue. The issue is that the media is slanted. I proved this in my book -- and people need to wake up to that.
Michael Jackson was a target-- not only of a DA with a vendetta, but of a media machine that presented him as being guilty in the "court of public opinion" while his trial was underway. It's really unfair (and backward) that the media chooses to ignore all the "Not Guilty" verdicts that came down in Santa Maria in 2005. For many people in the media, it's all about ratings, and they try to make it look like the "NOT GUILTY" verdicts never happened...Media people just want to keep talking trash about MJ, and I hear there's a new British documentary that just came out, basically calling MJ all kinds of names and using Diane Diamond as a major source. Geeze -- that's really a bad thing -- considering that Court TV fired Diamond just days after MJ's trial ended -- her career is failing -- and her book never sold! How can ANYONE use this biased reporter as a major source?? Don't they know this is slanted journalism?? I wish someone could call an ethics committee in England and report these folks. I met these novice documentary makers briefly (at Tom Mesereau's office in LA) and they were feeding him a line of BS about them doing a positive documentary about Michael. they are fakes and I was there to watch them in person!!
I ASK A FAVOR: Whoever is able, please go to the "Ethical Standards" committee that oversees TV in the UK and file a report against these people who came out with a new doc about a week ago. By the way, Martin Bashir was brought before this same "ethics" committee about three times (before he did the famous MJ doc with Gavin Arvizo in the scene). I wrote about all of this in my book -- but back in 2002 -- when Bashir convinced MJ that he was going to do a documentary that would be flattering, no one knew about the "unfair practices" martin Bashir had been accused of in the past...
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Hi bloggers, I hope all is well with you!
On Tuesday, I had the honor and pleasure to sit in the studio with the Reverend Al Sharpton and talk with him for an hour about Michael Jackson, the media witch hunt, and the new book I've written. The call boards were so full from people wanting to comment, that Rev Sharpton has asked me to come back next week to talk about the book again (we didn't have enough time to cover all the main points because of so many callers!)
Anyway, I will tell you a few highlights from my experience about being on KEEPING IT REAL, Rev. Sharpton's nationally syndicated radio show.
1) First of all, he is a humble spirit in person -- very down to earth and cool. I met his daughter, Dominique, and she is a testament to his great spirit, as were the rest of Rev. Sharpton's staff at his show. I was happy to be there and was made to feel at home.
2) Some of the callers thought I was black (African-American) and I loved that! I loved being called "Sister Jones" and the REV was cool with it too! (A lot of people who don't meet me in person think I'm African American because of my name -- it's a kind of cool little secret I've lived with all of my life.)
3) The whole business of Michael making a comeback is something that Rev. Sharpton wants to see. He told me that, at the funeral of James Brown, he, Rev. Sharpton, reminded Michael that James Brown was attacked by media and imprisoned for no reason and still went on with his career! The Reverend counseled Michael to do the same thing -- to forget all the media bias and just get out there and do his "thing." No one doubts that Michael is a musical genius. He can come back stronger than ever, and Rev. Sharpton wants to help make that happen, as do I, as do many, many of his fans who called in to express that same sentiment.
4) The idea of "taking down" African American celebs came up -- and we talked about that trend that started 100 years ago. I talked about the fact that DA Sneddon has had it "in" for MJ for years -- and said that I think Sneddon is a racist and brought up the fact that MJ was the only person of color living in the "rich folk" section of Santa Barbara County when Sneddon started with him in 1993 -- and I think that had something to do with Sneddon's alleged vendetta against MJ. In my opinion, he didn't just want to take down a superstar, he wanted to take down the world's greatest black superstar -- so there -- I said it! Of course, now Oprah lives in that "tony" county as well -- and Rev. Sharpton said: "Oprah better watch out!" -- but he was just kidding.(or maybe not!)
5) I pointed out that during the trial, the last witness called was actor/movie star Chris Tucker. When Mr. Tucker was shown a photo of himself with his family at Neverland, Tucker looked at the photo and confirmed that it was his likeness and asked Sneddon, kind of joking, if he could get a copy of the picture. DA Tom Sneddon replied: "If you're a good boy." WELL – Rev. Sharpton and I talked about that and I told him that MEZ later talked to the jury about "the comment to Chris Tucker" and jurors said they were not pleased with that comment. I also recalled that Sneddon's comment to Tucker infuriated the jury, and made the courtroom go dead silent -- though I think I forgot to mention this incident in my book -- YIKES!
6) I told the audience listening in that the jury had NOT ONE African American on the panel and that Sneddon and his team struck out 2 African American women who could have been jurors. MEZ objected on constitutional grounds, but in a U.S. court of law, each side has the right to strike 10 people for "no particular reason." Sharpton was not surprised.
7) But Rev. Al Sharpton was surprised that the jury panel was seated without any African American person at all. Sharpton didn't realize that Michael Jackson was found not guilty by a jury that had NOT ONE African American on the panel. He also thought it was odd, and unfair, that the media still went running after Michael all the way to the other side of the world -- to continue their accusations -- even after the man was found not guilty!!! We both agreed that this was clearly somewhat "racist" and biased, and we talked about other African American superstars who have been media targets. At the top are the BIG THREE : Michael Jackson, Michael Tyson, and Michael Jordan. Of course, these days, all superstars seem to have become targets (Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Paris Hilton, etc) but that doesn't change the fact, in my opinion, there was a racist overtone in the prosecution of Michael Jackson.
More to follow...
For now, I'm sending positive vibes to everyone who cares about the issues being raised in this blog. May God Bless you and keep you in prayer and in harmony.
With love, peace, and appreciation to those who have reached out to help us spread this word,
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Hi Dear Friends and Supporters!
I woke up to a voice today -- and found that I was scared and disoriented. For a moment, I didn't know where I was, or who was talking to me. I could hear a voice coming from the living room, but I was tucked away in my bed and still in my dreams. As I awoke, I went rushing toward the front of the house, and saw my future step son staring at me like I was a zombie. John Michael had entered my home with his own key -- having been directed by his father to get into the house. My fiancé, along with many other people, including my assistant Louis, had been trying to call me for hours. My fiancé was at his wit's end because he thought something horrible might have happened to me. For almost three hours, I was not answering the phones at home, on my cell, or on my Blackberry. For aIl intents and purposes, I was dead to the world.
Then, as soon as I was fully awake, I looked at my future step son, thanked him for checking on me, then saw the clock and freaked. I was in a panic and I said I needed to rush to the phone. Of course, it was too late when I got on the phone to tell Louis that I was so sorry. I knew I was too late -- it was already 4PM (EST) and I had missed the MJ chat event we'd been planning for such a long time. Louis was very gracious and said the Michael Jackson fans were gracious and understanding as well. When we hung up, I wrote a quick e-mail to Louis and asked him to forward it to any MJ fans who were still on the chat. Still, I felt awful. As I think about this crazy "non chat event" -- I realize that it takes more energy for me to write than I ever really like to admit.
As I write this blog, I'm looking down at my hands, only to see that the left hand is covered in blue ink. (Yes, I write on tablets with ink and legal pads quite often.) The writing that I have done to see Michael Jackson Conspiracy through to publication -- especially when no one wanted the book and I had to self publish, self edit, and self-proof the whole thing -- just took it's toll on me. I think the trip to Las Vegas to see JOE JACKSON was a great deal of fun -- but I also went there for the sake of the book, and all the work I continue to do each day in dealing with PR efforts and every promotional attempt under the sun -- takes it's toll on me as well.
It's hard fighting this uphill battle to bring justice for Michael. For starters, I'm tired of being told "NO" by Oprah, Dateline, 20/20, People Magazine, and others including: Montel Williams, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Steve Harvey, Larry Elder, Tavis Smiley, Howard Stern, and the list goes on.
I have asked people to suggest ideas for book events and Louis and I follow up on those ideas, virtually every day. We wanted to have a signing in Union Square, NYC, but that was shot down by executives at iUniverse. It seems that wherever we turn, we run into a road block. Joe Jackson told me he has experienced some of that type of "stonewalling" as well. Still, that does not help in our struggle to get the message of this book out to the public -- to prove to the world that THE MEDIA TWISTS THE TRUTH!
Again, I'm sending everyone my apologies for missing the live chat today -- for sleeping like the dead -- but I guess my body needed it, especially since the trip back from Vegas took 10 hours (don't ask) and landed me in JFK at 2:30 AM.
Peace and love!
Monday, July 23, 2007
Since Aphrodite Jones published her new book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy, I have noticed that many people in the media still have an unreasonable expectation that they enjoy a wide latitude when it comes to easily disseminating "inside information.” In a court of law, evidence that does not meet certain rules (or standards) does not get admitted during trial. Over the internet, I found a brief (and very general) explanation of evidence that cannot be admitted in court:
"The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible."
Hearsay (the repeating of "rumors") and people's unqualified opinions (unless a person is an expert in an applicable field, a person’s opinions can be deemed to be just more “rumors”) seem to be what some media figures trade on when they discuss the Michael Jackson trial. “Inside information,” no matter how juicy and titillating and perhaps even scandalous, does not rise to the test of being "evidence" that can be admitted during trial. The kind of “inside information” that is based on rumor and innuendo can never be deemed to be reliable. Had any of this so-called titillating “inside information” ever been considered to be reliable, you had better believe that D.A. Sneddon would have moved to admit it in court. But there is a check on moving to admit unreliable evidence: competent defense counsel and a reasonable judge would follow the rules of criminal procedure, before admitting evidence.
When media figures act like any kind of evidence (regardless of the quality of evidence or in respect of any standards) can be admitted in court, what these media figures are confused about is that they think a court of law is the same as what has evolved to become the court of public opinion. There is a blurring that is taking place inside the media. Reporters, journalists, and commentators are collapsing a real court of law, where there are standards and procedures, with the court of public opinion, where, according to the pattern of the media's pack mentality which is documented in Michael Jackson Conspiracy, almost anything goes. On some televised court programs, I have noticed that some media figures will present almost any kind of “evidence” to the public, whereas if reporters and correspondents had to present the same “evidence” in an actual court, the media would be subject to rules and standards. Why have some in the media come to believe that they are bound by no rules or standards?
When the media spoon feeds the public "sound bites" based on substandard information, it becomes obvious that many in the media, and some correspondents in particular, are not following any rules or standards when it comes to what should be considered “facts” in their journalism. If a reporter’s career has taken her or him all the way to a major news outlet, then that reporter should have already learned this lesson. You could almost say that any media figures, who are still trading on gossipy “inside information,” are acting reckless and with wanton disregard for any rules or standards.
As Michael Jackson Conspiracy becomes widely read and discussed, more people are discovering for themselves the high standards in journalism, to which we must return. In response to commentary by Mark Fuhrman, someone posted the following message on one of Ms. Jones’s YouTube videos: “Since when is crime a matter of opinion? I thought it was a matter of laws.”
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The recent statements broadcast on CNN involving the improprieties of the Catholic Church and comparisons to Michael Jackson are indicative of the media bias against Michael Jackson and people of color, in general. There was never any evidence to show that Jackson hurt any child. It borders on racism for CNN to fail to present the other side of the coin and to leave statements about Jackson’s alleged guilt to remain unchallenged. The truth is that Michael Jackson is innocent and was found not guilty. The King of Pop should not be compared to O.J. Simpson or to anyone else for that matter. What everyone should be asking themselves is why does the media focus on tearing down people of color, without referring to the likes of Robert Blake, who was found guilty by a civil jury? Beyond that, people like Mark Fuhrman and Dr. Henry Lee seem to be rewarded for their alleged wrong doings by being given a platform in the media. What's wrong with that picture?"
For more information, please visit the page on CNN's website.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
When I first read about the Duke scandal, I was sure that the new DA in Durham, Mike Nifong, had evidence to justify a trial. I was sure that three Duke Lacrosse players would be serving time behind bars for violating a woman. Even as Nifong’s tactics first came under fire, I defended Nifong, and told people that crimes are not created by District Attorneys. DAs prosecute people using real evidence and witness statements. Of course, now that Mike Nifong has been tried for professional misconduct, for hiding exculpatory evidence, now that Nifong has been disbarred, I had to seriously rethink the power we give to District Attorneys across America.
We all know that old saying, “A District Attorney can indict a ham sandwich.” A District Attorney presents one side to a grand jury, and then can lead ordinary citizens down a path to an indictment. Is that justice in our country? As a crime writer and journalist for 25 years, I have attended many high profile trials, and I know the lengths that DA Tom Sneddon went to – in order to convince a jury that Michael Jackson was guilty of three things: Lewd acts upon a child; Serving alcohol to a child; and Conspiracy to hold that child (and his family) hostage at Neverland.
When I covered the case for FOX news, I, like most other media folks, was convinced that Jackson was guilty on all counts – even though the trial had not yet started. Most media folks covering the Jackson trial wanted DA Sneddon to be right. Why? Because putting Jackson behind bars would be a media bonanza – it would make Paris Hilton’s stint in jail seem like the “bubble gum” that it is. Jackson behind bars would create a billion dollar tabloid industry, with a story-a-day about Jackson’s suicide watches, his visitors, his family, and his “crazed” fans. Ratings and dollars seemed to be motivating the media, and the truth behind DA Sneddon’s allegations – just like the truth behind DA Nifong’s allegations – was not the focus of any news reports.
On the day that Michael Jackson was released from the Santa Maria courtroom, exonerated by a jury of all 14 charges against him, I noticed that the media in the room went numb. On that day, I looked at DA Sneddon for the first time and realized that, just like Mike Nifong, he’d become “the emperor who had no clothes.”
But instead of being held accountable for a five-month trial and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, DA Sneddon was secretly applauded by the law enforcement community surrounding him. Law enforcement seemed happy that Jackson’ reputation was ruined. Media didn’t report that, like Mike Nifong, it was Tom Sneddon who created a conspiracy to put Jackson behind bars. Unlike Mike Nifong, Tom Sneddon was never held to account for the public ordeal.
People spoke “behind-the-scenes” about the bias the Santa Barbara DA had against the King of Pop. People whispered about DA Sneddon’s alleged vendetta against the pop star. In my opinion, DA Sneddon, like DA Nifong, should have been brought up on charges for professional misconduct, or at the very least, should have been outed by the media for his bogus accusations.
Looking back on my coverage of the Jackson trial for FOX News, I realize I was following the “pack mentality” of the media – a dangerous trend. It wasn’t until I went back to Santa Maria, to review the evidence alone in the courthouse basement a year later, that I realized that Jackson’s accuser, when taped by police, was cunning and deceitful in his original police interview. DA Tom Sneddon appeared to have an agenda, and law enforcement stood behind him, hopeful that they would imprison the King of Pop, or, at the very least, ruin his reputation forever.
It became clear that the Santa Barbara DA had no real evidence. He only had the words of a child who, on the stand, admitted he lied under oath on previous occasions. In fact, trial testimony would prove that, long before they met Jackson, the accuser and his family had filed a case alleging sexual molestation, involving JC Penney guards and their mom. The idea that Michael Jackson was brought to face criminal charges based on the statements of admitted liars, based on the words of a family of proven grifters -- suddenly seemed ludicrous.
To this day, no one in the media has called DA Tom Sneddon out on the carpet. As for the Duke Lacrosse players, even though Mike Nifong has been dethroned, how do these young men regain their reputations after being subject to such public spectacle? How do people redeem themselves after being powerless, at the hands of a biased DA? At least the Duke Lacrosse players now have the media on their side, but will they ever be able to live normal lives, without constantly being reminded of this scandal?
Even though we now know that the Duke players were “set up” by DA Nifong, doubts and suspicions will linger in everyone’s minds about what improprieties went on that night in their frat house. Similarly, though Michael Jackson was completely exonerated, two years later, people have doubts about the “Not Guilty” verdicts in June of 2005. Many people believe Jackson was found “Not Guilty” because of a star-crazed jury and because of Jackson’s “star power.” Nothing could have been further from the truth.
I allege that, just as in the case against the Duke Lacrosse players, the case against Jackson was trumped up. Why? Because some District Attorneys want to make a “name” for themselves. District Attorneys, we now know, hope that notoriety will help them win an election. People need to realize that a biased DA can perpetuate untold damage on any one of us.
I think it’s time that people ask themselves, “Do DA’s have too much power? Should their offices be subject to more public scrutiny?” I use the case of the Duke Lacrosse players and the case of Michael Jackson to prove that District Attorneys can accuse anyone of anything, without having hard evidence, and these powerful individuals have no real “check system” in place to keep them honest. Instead, they have the media at their heels, ready to pounce on anyone assumed to be guilty before standing trial. What ever happened to “innocent before proven guilty” in this country?
–Aphrodite Jones, author of
Michael Jackson Conspiracy
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The media wants to pretend that the book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy, isn't for real. I will appear on FOX this Thursday and expect to be put in the hot seat by Bill O'Reilly who will certainly attack the veracity of the book. I hope that people watching will realize that Michael Jackson has been a victim of the media for many years. And more importantly, I hope viewers will get the message that the media STILL wants to build their ratings by tearing Michael (and other celebs) down. This trend includes the trashing (or ignoring) of my new book, which by the way, Nancy Grace has refused to acknowledge -- period. I find that particularly ironic, since Nancy Grace launched her own CNN show on Michael's back -- using the Jackson trial as the original content for her blabber.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
To all you bloggers out there:
This is my first blog – ever. And I must admit, it’s a bit scary for me, because I primarily write for book readers and, sometimes, for magazine and newspaper readers. Writing this, my first blog entry, feels like I’m writing into thin air. I have no idea who will read this, or who will respond, or what blogging is really about. This concept is new to me. All I know is that I have a new book that has people buzzing – it exposes the media bias surrounding Michael Jackson. In it, I use trial evidence to show people how slanted news coverage can be.
Speaking of that, I was on FOX News with Geraldo Sunday night and had a few seconds to talk about this new book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy, and just as I was getting into a discussion about the media bias against Michael Jackson, the camera went to Mark Fuhrman, who trashed Jackson all the way. What stunned me was that Fuhrman seemed to have no clue about what he was saying. For one thing, Furman wasn’t ever at the Jackson trial, nor had he bothered to do “catch up” homework about my book. Furthermore, he seemed to admit that he had a slanted view about the trumped up charges against Michael, and felt Michael was guilty, regardless of the jury verdicts. I was shocked to realize that here I was, trying to set the record straight about the Michael Jackson trial. And meanwhile, Fuhrman decided that, for his part, he was going to give the public more disinformation about Michael Jackson.
One thing that I found curious: Furman said that “most mothers lie” on the stand. Hmmmm. Well, in the 2005 case against Jackson, the mother of the accuser lied so often, about everything under the sun, and it was proven that she defrauded the California taxpayers by taking welfare while having received a $152,000 settlement from the J.C. Penney Corp. As some people know, that $152,000 was granted to her after she filed a suit that alleged she was sexually molested and assaulted by a group of J.C. Penney guards in a J.C. Penney parking lot. Her two sons – both of the Jackson accusers – backed this “mother” up, swearing they witnessed a sexual and physical attack on Janet Arvizo in the J.C. Penney parking lot. Janet Arvizo later admitted to defense attorney Tom Mesereau, from the witness stand, that she claimed that a J.C. Penney guard twisted one of her nipples “10 to 25 times.”
One of her sons, Star Arvizo, said that he witnessed his mother putting her breast back into her bra after the supposed “parking lot attack.” The other son, Gavin Arvizo, claimed he saw his mother being assaulted by J.C. Penney guards, but Janet Arvizo had no visible marks on her body on the day of the incident. According to Mesereau’s research, Janet Arvizo’s “bruises” appeared some time later – conveniently when she went to a civil attorney to squeeze money out of J.C. Penney.
From my perspective, Michael Jackson was a target for this family of grifters, and Tom Mesereau proved that in court time and time again. But the media would never report it. I was guilty of that kind of slanted reportage – because back then I had “guilty” in my head before I listened to the evidence. Looking back, I reported the same things that other media people seemed to focus on. In my view, everyone followed a pack – like a herd of sheep. Even after the “NOT GUILTY” verdicts, no one bothered to say they were wrong. No one wanted to show the defense side of the story – not at all.
I decided to write this book, Michael Jackson Conspiracy, about a year after the trial was over. I had been given access to the evidence in Santa Maria, and as I sat in the courthouse basement looking at everything – it dawned on me that this accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was not being truthful in his initial police interview. I re-wound the tape a few times and kept looking at one thing. The police asked Gavin if he knew what an ejaculation was. Gavin was 13 at the time, and he looked at the police and Gavin paused, then said he didn’t know what it was. So I turned to the court clerk, who was monitoring me, and I asked her, “What do you think of this?”
The clerk said a 13-year-old boy knows what ejaculation is, and she laughed in a nervous way. Then I rewound the video tape again. I looked at how this accuser answered other questions. For instance, the police asked Gavin if he knew right from wrong. Gavin said, “Yes.” Then the police asked Gavin to give an example of doing something that was wrong. And suddenly – Gavin stopped dead. The kid had no examples to give. The police had to give him ideas, like, “Is killing someone wrong?” And the kid said, “Yeah.” It was like the police were spoon-feeding him information, calling Gavin “buddy,” and figuring out ways to get Gavin to give them answers they were fishing for.
But what really struck me as odd was the careful way that Gavin was responding. It was like he had been schooled or trained in this kind of thing.
In my career, I have written really gut-wrenching books about tragic murders. Some of my books have been true stories about how teenagers have killed people. I have always approached the impact of crime on children in a serious way. I would not make light of it or be dismissive of it, if I thought a crime had been committed against a child. Yet, as I was reviewing the evidence during my research for Michael Jackson Conspiracy, I noted that things were not adding up.
I wonder if Michael would have ever tried to help this family if he’d been told about their background. I highly doubt it. I still feel it’s sickening that these people had managed to manipulate so many stars, getting them into their corner – George Lopez and Chris Tucker among them. The Arvizo clan even reached out to Jay Leno, who later testified that Gavin sounded “scripted” over the phone. That was the exact word Leno used: “scripted.” In fact, Leno was so put-off by Gavin’s calls, he made a request to have the calls stop. The woman who set up the original phone calls, an LA comic, told Leno that Gavin “writes things down before he says them” – trying to make excuses for the boy, telling Leno she thought Gavin was reading from a paper because the kid was practicing for a career in comedy and acting.
Of course, there are so many details like this that were never reported in the mainstream news. People only heard sound bites, and most of the coverage was hype-oriented, not content-oriented. After my appearance on Geraldo last night, I realized that the interview with Fuhrman still sounded like baseless hype. The whole purpose of my book is to create a lesson out of the damage perpetuated by baseless hype in the news. Yet, two years after the media was exposed for its unfounded hype and for forecasting a false outcome in Michael Jackson’s trial, Mark Fuhrman, as a representative of FOX News, was acting as if there had been no lesson to learn.
Okay, well – I can go on forever, but I’m going to stop here for now before I get even more heated up about this. Some fan sites have asked me to answer questions and I will be happy to do that. Please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Keep the faith! And tell people that the MEZ and I will be doing only one public book signing together. We will be at the Brookins AME Church, 4831 S Gramercy Place, Los Angeles, California, 90062. Hope to see people in LA next Monday night, June 11, from 7pm - 9pm.
Peace and Love!