Sorry I’m a little late on this bandwagon, but jumping on is still encouraged!
Check out Joe Vogel’s new piece about the history behind ‘Gone Too Soon’ (if you haven’t done so yet).
Sorry I’m a little late on this bandwagon, but jumping on is still encouraged!
Check out Joe Vogel’s new piece about the history behind ‘Gone Too Soon’ (if you haven’t done so yet).
This interview went virtually under the radar, and that’s not surprising since it took place after the airing of the ‘Living With Michael Jackson’ crockumentary and was a highly positive piece. However, that standard doesn’t hold in the following interview conducted by Michael himself. The interview has some very heart-warming surprises (which almost brought me to tears!). So without further ado, here is said interview:
By Bob Colacello, Pharrell Williams, Andy Warhol
This interview, which took place in early June 2003, actually came about as the magazine was planning a piece on Pharrell Williams, who at the time was an upstart producer from Virginia. As the editors were arranging the story with Williams, he casually mentioned that he’d always wanted to speak to Jackson, who had been in the news after appearing in British journalist Martin Bashir’s infamous television documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, which portrayed the singer at his most bizarre. A complex chain of e-mails and phone calls ensued, messages were passed, reputations were vouched for, and a few days later, Jackson’s office called to say that he would do the interview.
MICHAEL JACKSON: So, I’m interviewing you, right? And I think it’s seven questions, or something like that?
PHARRELL WILLIAMS: Sure. Whatever you like.
JACKSON: Okay. What would you say inspires you in your music? What is it that inspires you to create your music?
WILLIAMS: It’s a feeling. You treat the air as a canvas and the paint is the chords that come through your fingers, out of the keyboard. So when I’m playing, I’m sort of painting a feeling in the air. I know that might sound corny, but—
JACKSON: No. No, that’s a perfect analogy.
WILLIAMS: And when you know it’s done, you know it’s done. It’s like painting or sculpting. When you let it go it’s because you know that it’s finished. It’s completed. And vice versa—it tells you, “Hey, I’m not done.”
JACKSON: Yeah. And it refuses to let you sleep until it’s finished.
WILLIAMS: That’s right.
JACKSON: Yeah, I go through the same thing. [laughs] And what do you think of the music today—are you into the new sounds that are being created and the direction that music is going?
WILLIAMS: Well, personally, I kind of feel like I’m taking notes from people like yourself and Stevie [Wonder] and Donny [Hathaway], and just sort of doing what feels right.
WILLIAMS: You know, like when everyone was going one way, you went Off the Wall.
JACKSON: Right. [laughs]
WILLIAMS: And when everyone else was going another way, you went Thriller. You just did it your way. And I’m taking notes from people like yourself, like not being afraid to listen to your feelings and turn your aspirations and ambitions into material. Making it happen, making it materialize . . .
JACKSON: Who are some of the older artists—not the artists on the radio today—who inspired you when you were younger? Like the artists your father listened to, did you learn anything from those artists?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. The Isley Brothers.
JACKSON: Yeah, me too. I love the Isley Brothers. And I love Sly and the Family Stone.
WILLIAMS: Donny, Stevie.
JACKSON: You like all the people I like. [laughs]
WILLIAMS: Those chord changes. They take you away.
JACKSON: Beautiful, beautiful. Okay, well, where are you? In New York?
WILLIAMS: I’m in Virginia Beach, Virginia, sir.
JACKSON: Virginia! Oh, beautiful. Will you give my love to Virginia?
WILLIAMS: Yes. Thank you.
JACKSON: And your mother and your parents? Because God has blessed you with special gifts.
WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. And I just want to say something, and I don’t know if you want to hear this, but I just have to say it because it’s on my heart. But people bother you—
WILLIAMS: Because they love you. That’s the only reason why. When you do something that people don’t necessarily understand, they’re going to make it into a bigger problem than they would for anybody else because you’re one of the most amazing talents that’s ever lived. You’ve accomplished and achieved more in this century than most any other men.
JACKSON: Well, thank you very much. That’s very kind of you.
WILLIAMS: What you do is so amazing. When you are 100 years old, and they’re still making up things about what you’ve done to this and what you’ve done to that on your body—please believe me, if you decided you wanted to dip your whole body in chrome, you are so amazing that the world, no matter what they say, is going to be right there to see it. And that is because of what you have achieved in the music world, and in changing people’s lives. People are having children to your songs. You’ve affected the world.
JACKSON: Thank you very much. It’s like the bigger the star, the bigger the target. You know when you’re—and I’m not being a braggadocio or anything like that—but you know you’re on top when they start throwing arrows at you. Even Jesus was crucified. People who bring light to the world, from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King to Jesus Christ, even myself. And my motto has been Heal the World, We are the World, Earth Song, Save Our Children, Help Our Planet. And people want to persecute me for it, but it never hurts, because the fan base becomes stronger. Andthe more you hit something hard, the more hardened it becomes—the stronger it becomes. And that’s what’s happened: I’m resilient. I have rhinoceros skin. Nothing can hurt me. Nothing.
WILLIAMS: That’s precisely my point. I just want to let you know you’re amazing, man. What you do to music, what you’ve done to music, from “Billie Jean” to “That’s What You Get (For Being Polite)”—[sings]“That’s what you get for being polite.”
JACKSON: Oh, you know that one? [laughs]
WILLIAMS: [sings] “Jack still sits all alone.”
JACKSON: Boy, you know all those ones . . . [hums a guitar riff]
WILLIAMS: If I never work with you, just know that you are unstoppable. That’s why I said, when you’re 100 years old and you decide to dip your entire body in chrome, as much as they say things—and I don’t care what they say about you, sir—they’re going to be right there to see it.
JACKSON: There’s a lot of jealousy there. I love all races, I love all people, but sometimes there’s a devil in people, and they get jealous. Every time there’s a luminary that goes beyond the heights of his field of endeavor, people tend to get jealous and try to bring him down. But they can’t with me because I’m very, very, very strong. [laughs] They don’t know that, though.
WILLIAMS: They know! Please believe me, they know!
JACKSON: Anybody else would’ve cracked by now; they can’t crack me. I’m very strong.
WILLIAMS: Of course. They couldn’t crack you when you were 10, because you were destroying grown men doing what you did with your voice and your talent. And when you were 20, you were outdoing people that had been doing it for 20 or 30 years. And nowadays they’re still waiting to see where you’re at. They want to see your kids, they want to see your world. You’re amazing, and I just wanted to tell you that, man. And I hope that this all gets printed because it’s very important to me. I hope that I can be half as dope as you one day.
JACKSON: Oh, God bless you. You’re wonderful, too . . . Have a lovely day.
WILLIAMS: You too, sir.
JACKSON: Thank you. Bye.
Thanks to Positively Michael for this great find!
After swooning over the glamorous picture of Michael so beautifully veiled, many of you probably noticed the photo of the girl who Michael happens to be holding. Well to my delight, I wasn’t the only one who was really anxious about finding out who that girl in the picture is. And before you know it, someone on a forum on Positively Michael pointed we really curious folk in the right direction.
And here is the story from said woman’s blog:
“In April of 2009, you might have seen Michael coming out of a building with a photo of a girl in his hand. It was on fan message boards for a while…and the question of who the girl is came up a lot. Well that girl was me and at the time I found it VERY embarrassing…but of course now I cherish it. People on the internet came up with different things like “It’s his girlfriend”, “It’s Blanket’s mother” and one gossip site even said it was a photo of the new face he wanted after surgery.Just to give a little background, followers often gave photos of themselves to Michael. We gave Michael a lot of photos of us all posing together, alone, with him, etc. The more Michael saw you, the more he remembered who you were and your name and things you told him about yourself. I remember one of his bodyguards telling me, “Always include a photo with your letters. He likes photos and he remembers you that way.” I always carried stationary, pens, markers, stickers, gifts and photos in my trunk to always be prepared with something to give to him.On this particular day I had emptied my stuff out for some reason and only had a few developed photos inside my car. I just really wanted to always give him something so I quickly wrote a note on the back of one of the photos and gave it to him when we saw him inside. We said our hello’s and parted different ways so I didn’t see him exit out the building.After that he went shopping to a few stores including Off the Wall on Melrose and the Ed Hardy store. I don’t remember if it was during the drive to the Ed Hardy store or when I was done and going home but I got a call.“Oh my God! There are photos of Michael holding your photo!”I quickly went online to try and find it and sure enough it was all over the internet already. I got red in the face and was so embarrassed…and I got made fun of for it by my friends for MONTHS. But of course, now it is something I treasure. ❤ So there it is, there is no real “story” behind the photo. Fans have fantasized some really weird theories about the incident. LOL I wanted to tell Michael about the photos and how funny it looked but I never got the chance to because I started seeing him less and less…I’m sure at some point I wrote about it in my letters but it wasn’t ever discussed. And I’m okay with it being that way…
A subject pertaining to Michael that has little cover in the fan community is his role in the video gaming industry. As a fan, character, and composer of music (no surprise there), this part of Michael’s legacy may be overlooked.
His sparked interest created his first known involvement, which can be found in his gaming debut Michael Jackson’s Moonwalker. Released in 1989, the video game was made for arcade, computer, and console and was a small success of its time, co-created by Michael himself. Aptly named after the success of the 1988 film Moonwalker, the video game is themed after the Smooth Criminal sequence. If you know the short film, you’ll know Michael saves the day by rescuing kidnapped children from the evil “Mr. Big” and using his powerful dancing to do so. Bubbles even makes an appearance in the game.
Later in 1994, Michael composed material for the hit Sega video game Sonic the Hedgehog 3. This was done is secrecy, and not many knew he was aiding the development in the game itself. Rumor has it that the reason Michael is not credited in the games credits is due to the fact that he was not happy with the way things sounded. Rumor also has it that the sounds he created for the game became the basis for Stranger in Moscow. Bradley Buxer, who partnered with Michael to compose for Sega and is credited in the game had this to say for Black & White magazine:
“Michael called me at the time for help on this project, and that’s what I did. And if he is not credited for composing the music, it’s because he was not happy with the sound coming out of the console. At the time, game consoles did not allow an optimal sound reproduction, and Michael found it frustrating. He did not want to be associated with a product that devalued his music.” – Buxer
He also says the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 song and Stranger in Moscow are related.
Here is a link to that brief interview for Black & White Magazine Buxer did in December of 2009.
Here’s your opportunity to be the judge:
Here is the song in the end credits of Sonic the Hedgehog 3…
And that same tune over Stranger in Moscow…
Aside from that, let’s travel 5 years into the future and you’ll find Michael’s cameo appearances in Space Channel 5 and Space Channel 5: Part 2. Released in 1999 in Japan, this video game was another “music/rhythm” video game in which Michael’s singing and dancing not only transcend time and space, but ultimately help save the day.
The synopsis for this game is as follows:
“It’s the 25th century, and planet Earth is in a state of crisis. An alien race, the Morolians, have launched an invasion against Earth, randomly shooting innocent victims with a mysterious ray gun. The effect of the ray is rather unusual, as it forces people to dance uncontrollably, and enslaves them to alien rhythms. Of course, their attack has caused a widespread panic. The first station to grab the scoop is a little–watched space broadcaster, “Space Channel 5”.
The premise of the game also reveals that the evil boss who is responsible for mayhem and controlling the “Morolians” desires ratings over the truth. Sound familiar? Michael’s roles in the first Space Channel 5 and the sequel (where he becomes the new boss of Space Channel 5) as Space Michael can be seen in a little further detail in the following video:
And lastly, we have Michael’s final character created, in-part, by him. Would you believe it was for a boxing game? That’s right! Released in 2000, Ready 2 Rumble Boxing: Round 2 featured Michael as a boxer, which, allegedly, he was motion captured and digitally photographed for along with Shaquille O’neal. Though there is not much noted in the game as far as the above, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was involved a little more than let on.
While there is no known involvement of the development of the Michael Jackson: The Experience games released in the last two years, it makes you wonder: what would a video game of such evolved technology look like– be like with Michael’s touch?
“Michael’s Pets”, a collection of stuffed animals made in the likeness of Jackson’s own pets is marketed in October, 1986. The singer was “very instrumental in the designing of the toys” and “in how it should be programmed”, according to Bob Michaelson, who helped develop the line with Jackson. The stuffed pets are ten in number, namely Cool Bear, based on the singer himself, Jabbar the giraffe, Louie the llama, Muscles the snake, Bubbles the chimpanzee, Uncle Tookie the frog, Spanky, a white dog, Mr. Bill, another dog, Suzy the rabbit, and Jeannine the ostrich. The singer requests that one dollar out of each purchase from the “Michael’s Pets” set be placed aside for a children’s organization.
Michael’s children- Prince, Paris, and Blanket, were in attendance at the recent ceremony acknowledging the donation of ten of Michael’s previously unpublicized artwork. The Children’s Hospital Los Angeles was the recipient of the ten works by Michael; three of which were signed with loving thoughts by Michael’s children. The art, which was selected by Michael’s children, became apart of an exhibit Michael dreamed of: “He often dreamed of having an exhibit,” a long time friend stated. “I think that having his work in the Children’s Hospital is such an honor.
As Written by Dave Edwards:
A few weeks ago, I posted an article that refuted conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart’s ridiculous notion that the “liberal” media coddled Michael Jackson during his life, and that “real” conservatives shouldn’t like or support Michael Jackson. One of the best pieces of evidence to support my rebuttal was the overwhelming support for MJ given by Breitbart’s mentor, conservative commentator Matt Drudge! How ironic!
In that post, I included several clips of four episodes of his then-weekly radio show, but in this post I have included the complete transcript and analysis for each episode, and you’re gonna jump out of your seat and do backflips when you hear the totality of what Drudge had to say!
The Matt Drudge Show: February 27th, 2005
There’s a heck of a story coming out tomorrow, Day 1 of the Michael Jackson trial, and before you roll your eyes1, they may put this guy away for the rest of his life, and I know that’s funny, I know that’s clever, I know we like to hang our freaks right in the town square, but if this turns out to be a phony case, we’re gonna be doing a public lynching!2 What happens if this case turns out to be completely bogus? Completely! What do you then do to the prosecutor? What do you then do to all these reporters? These Diane Dimonds? What do you do to them? If they have been pushing false information out there to such a degree, to besmirch in such a way, we’ll take that once the case falls apart, if it falls apart, but there’s an interesting story here coming soon on the Smoking Gun, and you know they’re trouble, they’ve been releasing all these documents. There’s no document they haven’t seen. They are going to allege in the morning, I’ve been told, that Michael Jackson’s accuser, who’s 15 years old, claims he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson does!
He told detectives that he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson. I don’t know how it ever got to this point. We’re not even supposed to name him, right? Did I get the memo here at Clear Channel? That we’re not supposed to name him? OK, we’ll be good. I’ll name him on the Drudge Report, I’ve got no shame! If you’ve got enough courage to go out there and start pointing fingers, and you can say “Well Drudge, it’s not fair”, alright I’ve already shown a picture of the mother, who’s now calling herself “Janet Jackson” because she married a guy named Jackson, we’ve already shown her face, and this boy already gave this interview with Bashir on ABC that was beamed on Channel 4 in Britain and ABC here, and how many times has Bashir shown the clip? Bashir must go to bed reciting Michael Jackson lyrics. This Bashir is going to be the first witness for Sneddon as these opening arguments go tomorrow. But it turns out that this innocent lamb told detectives that he knew more about sex than Michael Jackson does! This surprising appraisal from the boy, who is now 15 years old, came during a January 2004 interview with Santa Barbara sheriffs, and they recorded it. The boy, who was 13 at the time, and who has alleged molestation, replied that “Michael would always try to give me advice about the birds and the bees, but he didn’t know much. I knew more than he did.”3 At least that’s what the claim is. (At this point, Drudge starts laughing to himself.)
Oh, that testimony is going to be beautiful. That testimony is going to be something else. And to the judge’s credit, the judge is making this 15 year old innocent lamb go into the courtroom and testify in front of everybody. Not in some room with a little camera, Sneddon, but in front of the court, in front of the jury, in front of Michael Jackson himself! If you’re gonna put this guy away for the rest of his life, you’re accuser ought to have to face you. And that’s exactly what the judge has ordered here.4 Coming soon to an E! Channel reenactment near you. Have they done the casting on that? Maybe Corey Feldman could play the 15 year old abused boy. Corey needs work, right? Ridiculous, this whole thing. Well, it starts tomorrow, the curtain opens. Day 1 of the circus of the court, opening arguments, and they’re really going after this mother, how she said she wasn’t abused, and how she said she was abused in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.5
But the prosecutors say “Well, what does this have to do with the boy being molested by Michael Jackson? You can say whatever you want about the mother, or the brother, or brother’s mother, or the sister, or the bank accounts, or the cancer, or the question mark.” And I will give it to Michael Jackson’s attorney Mesereau, he’s gonna get down there and he’s gonna ask for the blood cell counts of the boy! It’s gonna get that nasty! I guess there’s a fine line, and you can’t turn off the jury too much. Maybe they’ll do nothing. Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.6 It’s gonna be fun to watch. So The Smoking Gun, in an interview with the boy, who says that he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson does! How about that! I don’t know how they ever got to that point. That is very curious. You put it in here, you put it in there, and you do this, and you do that, the birds and the bees, up there at Neverland.
1. “Before you roll your eyes”: I think that the reason that Drudge starts off his commentary on MJ like this is because, as a conservative commentator, the vast majority of his target audience already had negative feelings towards MJ, and had prematurely convicted him based not only on the sensationalist media coverage, but on their own prejudices as well. But I’m glad that Drudge decided to at least entertain the possibility that MJ could be innocent, which was something that many of his peers in talk radio obviously didn’t do.
As further proof of the fact that the vast majority of Drudge’s conservative audience thought MJ was guilty, here is Geraldo Rivera describing the amount of hate mail that he received for supporting Michael, and how it was second only to the hate mail that he received for supporting immigration reform!
I know this is totally off-topic, but if you want to see how passionate the argument over immigration can go, here is a heated argument that Geraldo had with Bill O’Reilly over Geraldo’s assertion that O’Reilly was covering a drunk driving case where there was a fatality strictly because it the driver was an illegal alien!
2. “I know we like to hang our freaks right in the town square, but if this turns out to be a phony case, we’re gonna be doing a public lynching!” Drudge is obviously alluding to the general public’s desire to want to see MJ go to jail, strictly for their own pleasure, and the media’s desire to play into this public desire. Unfortunately, lynchings were a tragic component of life for Black Americans, primarily those that lived in the south. Many black men were falsely accused of committing “immoral” crimes such as looking at a white woman, or talking back to a white man, and oftentimes their names and faces were posted in the local newspaper, which typically added fuel to the racial fire by sensationalizing the accusation, and lynch mobs would form and hunt down and kill their victim.
The media continues to do this to this day, although in a more high tech fashion. For example, here is an article that was written on Feb. 20th, 2003, at the height of the Bashir documentary backlash against MJ. It is titled “The Lynching of Michael Jackson”, and the author blasted Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. He states that O’reilly’s “vicious, nonstop attacks on Michael Jackson have come to fruition in the massively frenzied media lynching of the once-innocent, now-trampled persona of the little boy who led the Jackson Five”. He then goes on to state that “Perhaps the networks should spend as much time documenting proven pedophiles instead of “suspected” ones. That way they would less apt to be accused, as I am accusing them, of being nothing better than the Hitlers or Milosevics of this world who piled those they hated into mass graves much as the broadcast industry kills the reputations of celebrities gone off beam.”
3. The boy, who was 13 at the time, and who has alleged molestation, replied that “Michael would always try to give me advice about the birds and the bees, but he didn’t know much. I knew more than he did.” Drudge is referring to one of the many blatant lies that the detectives enabled during the prosecution of MJ. One of the funniest and most incredible (as in NOT credible!) lies that Gavin told was related to one of these “birds and the bees” talks that he claimed to have had with MJ. Gavin said that MJ told him that if he didn’t masturbate, he would “get to a level where he might rape a girl”. The ironic thing about this lie is that Gavin first stated it while on the witness stand during his cross-examination! He never said this to the investigators or the grand jury, and Sgt. Robel was utterly STUNNED when he heard this claim! In fact, Gavin told Sgt. Robel that it was his GRANDMOTHER who said this to him, and when he was caught in his lie, he said that MJ also said it to him. Talk about a coincidence, eh? For a more detailed look at this lie (and many others), read this post.
4. “And to the judge’s credit, the judge is making this 15 year old innocent lamb go into the courtroom and testify in front of everybody.” Sneddon, being the coward that he is, filed a motion (called “PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”) to have the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo closed to the public, meaning that an audio-only feed be provided to an overflow courtroom that is open to the public. Here is an excerpt:
This motion requires little argument. It is unquestionable that this trial, perhaps more than any other in the annals of jurisprudence, justifies the closure of the courtroom to the public during the testimony of child witnesses. The harm presented to these children by public presentation of their trial testimony would be immeasurable. Even before trial has begun, these child witnesses have been forced to move their home twice, change schools and even change their names because of the adversity presented by media attention. They have been the subject of hounding and surveillance by reporters. They have been publicly humiliated and defamed in the international press.
Cry me a freakin’ river! Sneddon wants to “protect their privacy”, but he had nooooooo problem having them testify in front of the grand jury! Fortunately, the defense immediately submitted a rebuttal titled “OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTIONS’S MOTION TO CLOSE FROM THE PULIC THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES”. Here it is in its ENTIRETY!:
Mr. Jackson vigorously opposes this Motion for the following reasons:
First, the Prosecution seeks to deny Mr. Jackson of his right to a public trial in which he is entitled to confront his accusers through lawful cross-examination. This is wrong.
These accusers are not little children. They are in their mid-teens. They have testified previously on more than one occasion. Not only did they testify before the Grand Jury, but also testified under oath in depositions during the J.C. Penney case. In that civil case, the older teenage accuser, i.e., John Doe, was caught in a parking lot after shoplifting. After being caught, his mother falsely alleged that she was sexually abused by the store security guards. John Doe testified under oath that seeing his mother “abused” was worse than his cancer.
These two teenage accusers have received acting training in Los Angeles and performed in public. They are not the “innocent little lambs” the Prosecution portrays them to be.
Second, other teenagers will come before this Court and testify about the abominations committed by these accusers. Their testimony will demonstrate that these teenage accusers are neither fragile nor sensitive, but that, rather, they are seasoned perpetrators. With all of the teenagers who will be testifying before this Court, the act of singling out these accusers with their sorted background for special treatment is unfair.
Third, Mr. Jackson not only seeks an acquittal in this case, but also vindication in a public trial. Our federal and state Constitutions guarantee the accused of his due process right to a fair trial before the public.
The recent “leak” of the Grand Jury transcripts is evidence of this unfortunate reality. The Prosecution says that “the international media attention focused upon this case will reach historic proportions” and that this case may be “the most reported criminal trial to occur in our lifetimes.” This proclamation is instructive. The “leak” has unquestionably inflamed the international community and poisoned the jury pool.
The vast majority of the people in our local and. international communities still does not know how the grand jury proceeding in this case took place. They do not know that the Prosecution, in essence, had a “field day,” in that they were able to do whatever they wanted. There was no defense lawyer or judge. No independent body was present to monitor and control any irregularities in the proceeding. It was a purely one-sided and unfair proceeding in which Mr. Jackson was not able to confront and cross-examine his accusers.
With the power of the Prosecution, the power of the Police and the power of those affiliated with and operating under these governmental bodies, one must ask himself or herself whether Mr. Jackson can ever obtain a fair trial.
Fourth, the real victim in this case is Mr. Jackson.
Over the years, Mr. Jackson has had to suffer and endure the pain of being falsely accused of the crimes he did not commit. He has had to bear treacherous accusations and undergo the horror of the Government’s invasion of his privacy, dignity, and integrity. No one will ever understand and appreciate the gravity of the harm the Government has inflicted upon Mr. Jackson unless and until he, too, has been a victim of the Government’s domination, abomination, brutality and abuse of power.
Remarkably, the Prosecution now says the two teenage accusers must be “protected” from the public. The assumption is that these two accusers are ‘•vulnerable,” “delicate” and “sensitive.” The irony of this plea, however, is that the two accusers are, in fact, seasoned con-artists, well-trained by those more experienced at doing what they are best at doing, i.e., lying.
More interestingly, the plea is coupled with a suggestion that the public and media may hear the testimony of these accusers through an audio/ visual feed. One must only conclude that such a request is, at best, disingenuous. How is it possible to “protect” these teenage accusers from the public when the public will hear everything they will say? The Motion is utterly unmeritorious.
Mr. Jackson is entitled to a public trial under the United States Constitution and California Constitution. He is entitled to confront and cross-examine his accusers, teenagers and adults alike, as well as to be vindicated in a public trial. Anything to the contrary will result in a total miscarriage of justice.
Mr. Jackson respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and Order the testimony of these two teenage accusers take place in a public trial.
Way to go, Mesereau! I couldn’t have said it better myself. He is 100% correct on everything he mentioned. I’m glad that he repeatedly invoked MJ’s constitutional rights, because those rights were designed to protect the accused from being railroaded to jail. The most pertinent right that is applicable to this situation is the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution, which provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.
In fact, Michael wanted to confront Gavin even BEFORE the trial! In an interview with journalist Charles Thomson, MJ’s former manager Dieter Wiesner said the following about MJ’s reaction to finding out his accuser was Gavin:
Two days after the Neverland raid Jackson’s depression turned to anger. When it emerged that the boy behind the accusation was none other than Gavin Arvizo, the boy whose hand Jackson had held in the Martin Bashir documentary, Jackson decided to fight.
“You know, when it was clear that this allegation was because of the Arvizos, then he started to really fight the situation,” says Wiesner. “Michael told me, ‘Dieter, you know what, they should bring this young boy into a big place, invite all the press and he should look me in the eyes and tell me that I did this.’ So he was ready to fight.”
I know you guys are probably asking yourselves “What did the media have to say about the possibility of Gavin testifying in private?” Well, it depends on which media entity you look at. The big networks (NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, USA Today, etc.) filed a motion to oppose Sneddon’s request based on their First Amendment “rights”, as well as the lack of any observable benefits to having them testify in private. Here’s an excerpt:
The District Attorney seeks to close the courtroom during the testimony of the alleged victim and his brother apparently to protect their anonymity and respective reputations. The District Attorney concedes, however, that the identities of both minors are widely known to the public. And the closure sought by the District Attorney would do nothing to mask either the identity or the substance of the witnesses’ testimony, given the District Attorney’s “suggestion that the interest of the media and the public can be served by an audio-only feed provided to an overflow courtroom during the testimony of these two witnesses.” There are no benefit created by eliminating the public’s ability to observe the proceedings, and thus the strict standards promoting openness under the First Amendment and California law dictate that the testimony of both of these witnesses must be held in open court.
One thing you’ll notice if you read the entire 13-page document is that there is no mention whatsoever of MJ’s rights to confront his accuser in court; its merely a regurgitation of their rights to cover the trial and report on it. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, considering that they tried desperately to have the trial televised!
Fortunately, there were some members of the media who were fair to MJ throughout the trial, and one of them is a true legal analyst who I have already praised in an earlier post named Jonna Spilbor. She wrote an article titled “When The Key Witness Is a Kid: Preparing Prospective Jurors in the Case Against Michael Jackson”. Here’s an excerpt:
As noted in Jackson’s Opposition, Jackson – like every criminal defendant has a right, under the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, to “confront” his accuser in a public trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that, under some circumstances, this right can be compromised when child sex abuse victims testify, on the ground that they may find it too traumatic and terrifying to face their accuser.
Accordingly, the California Penal Code provides that, in any criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with certain sex offenses against a minor under the age of 16 years, “the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, conduct a hearing to determine whether the testimony of a minor shall be closed to the public…” And that is exactly what Judge Melville did.
Here, the prosecution said closure was necessary was to “preserve the witness[‘s] anonymity, and allow [him] to testify about sensitive sexual issues without a courtroom packed with reporters, sketch artists, and zealous fans of defendant.” But these arguments are not persuasive.
First, the accuser is no longer truly anonymous. His name can easily be found on the Internet, and through his mother, he agreed to appear in a 2003 documentary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson.” (There, he appeared quite comfortable, resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder, while residing at his Neverland Ranch.)
Second, the suggestion that the witness will be unacceptably traumatized by having to testify in front of strangers is not in line with the facts. He is a teenager, not a young child. And, as the Jackson defense has pointed out, he has testified previously and extensively, before the grand jury, and (also under oath) in depositions.
Moreover, the details of his grand jury testimony were leaked to ABC News and recently disclosed, in part, on a number of its news shows – meaning that the public already knows the essence of his story, and he knows that the public knows.
Under the circumstances, while it likely will still be somewhat traumatic for the accuser to testify in an open courtroom with the public present, the judge still made the right decision to require him to do so.
The accuser’s testimony, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, will put Jackson in prison for years. Jackson is entitled to ask that the accuser believe in his own claims strongly enough to look Jackson in the eye, and state them publicly, for all the world to hear, and for the jury to consider.
I could have lied to you guys and told you that those were Mesereau’s words, and you guys would have believed me! That’s how strong and factual Spilbor’s support was for MJ in 2005. Her articles were amazing, and I compiled them in this post from last year which refutes the lies of Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin. Make sure you check it out when you get the chance!
5. “How she said she was abused in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.” The summary of how Janet conned JC Penney into settling her frivolous lawsuit is too long to be copied here, so I will suggest that you read the last section of this post to view that summary, which includes details about the $100k book deal that she was offered prior to the trial, her diagnosis of schizophrenia, her threats against the legal assistant to whom she confessed to lying about JC Penney, and how she made her kids memorize a script for their JC Penney deposition!
6. “Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.” This rarely seen article contains a photo of a very “goofy” Sneddon smiling for the camera, with his glasses hanging off of his head! On August 23rd, 2000, he and his buddy Sheriff Jim Thomas travelled with other Santa Barbara dignitaries to a mountain in the Canadian Artic. Led by a veteran mountain climber, they scaled the mountain to raise money for charity.
It’s too bad that Sneddon and Thomas didn’t fall off of that mountain!
The Matt Drudge Show : March 6th, 2005
It’s gonna be interesting to see Diane Dimond, whose been covering the Jackson case so aggressively against Michael Jackson, she’s under book contract, right? What do you think the excuse is gonna be if he walks, and I think even at this point court watchers are wondering “What has Sneddon done with this case?” You’ve got the daughter, the sister of the accuser saying “yeah, she lied about the case”1, and it looks very circumstantial at best, we’ll see, we’ll see, but if Jackson walks, and Jackson plays it big, and we’ve been reporting here at Drudge that if Jackson wins, he’s gonna play The World Cup, not play in the World Cup but perform at The World Cup next year, which is the biggest TV audience outside of The Super Bowl on planet Earth. Even more than you, Chris Rock, at the Oscars!
Now if he walks, and walks big, and it turns out the prosecution was full of hot air, and Sneddon lost his way somewhere at a Santa Ynez winery, how is Diane Dimond going to spin that in her book? She’s probably going to say that “well, it was his fame that got him off, or they couldn’t get a jury……”, and all the rest. But even she is now, I was reading her column in the New York Post, Dimond has been writing a weekly update. She was even talking about some court watchers were wondering if this family has it all together, this family that’s accusing, when everything that’s coming out, and they have this bombshell video that they showed in the courtroom, where they show the family was PRAISING Michael Jackson at the very time they said they were being held hostage and Jackson was molesting Gavin2. At the very moment they’re making this wonderful video, and they said they were coached, the problem is the guy making the video was German, and he barely spoke English! How did he coach them for an hour and tape the whole thing? This is a disaster! Sneddon is a disaster, as far as I can tell. And you can say “Why do you care so much about this Drudge? What’s in it for me? Why should I be worried about Michael Jackson? Every time I see his face I get creeped out, the music sucks, maybe if he gets back with Quincy Jones we’ll listen again”, you know, that whole rap. Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!3 And this is the story of the Michael Jackson case, in my opinion. 100 search warrants. Photos of his genitalia and his arse. And I know many of you don’t want to think of Michael Jackson in those terms. But Sneddon photographed his privates! Sneddon did! And if he did it to Michael Jackson, he could do it to you! Think about that!
And then you couple that with a media establishment that wants to see you fail! Who is mocking you because you are mockable, but still in cahoots, almost like a weird dynamic, a weird merger of government and media yet once again, and you can say “Well, this happens all the time”. I always get this feeling whenever I see Tim Russert of GE there on “Meet The Press”, standing next to the Pentagon secretary, or with Albright, Madeline Albright, he used to get the shivers because it’s the marriage of big media and big government. The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case4. Not necessarily because I care about Michael Jackson that much, although I probably do think he’s more talented than the average Joe out there, or Justin Timberlake, or Usher, or any of these new generation wannabes, they’re all living in the shadow of the Guinness Book of World Records holder, even Don Headley, even Fleetwood Mac, they’re all living in the shadow of his record, and I don’t know if they’re gonna be able to touch it. Maybe one day someone’s going to come along and top it, and it may not be in our lifetime. So here he is, and then you’ve got the prosecutor, you have the government, who has the authority to tear your life upside down. Now I don’t understand why that question hasn’t been presented to prosecutor Sneddon: “Sir, will you prosecute the accusers if it turns out they were lying, and exaggerating, and misrepresenting. Will you prosecute THEM?” And I would think the answer would probably be “No”, because then he’d have to look at the man in the mirror himself. Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?5 Did he ever consider the pros and the cons? Did he ever do any of this? It doesn’t appear that he did. And that is what scares me, and what should scare you also is the finger pointing, and the accusations, and the whisper campaign, taken to a government level with authority from 100 search warrants and photography of your private parts! Because somebody said something.
And in the ‘93 case apparently the description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!6 That’s why that case was never brought. Don’t believe for a second it’s because the boy settled, don’t believe for a second. That was a private affair! What did that have to do with the government? He would have been compelled under law to testify! Sneddon could have called the ’93 boy accuser in there and say “Tell me what you know, you’re under oath, tell me what you know, tell me what he did to you!”, but he never did that because the penis didn’t match! I’m sorry to be so graphic, but Sneddon and that whole crowd up there has turned it into this! Do we have photos of Sneddon’s…………..and wait for this to leak on the Smoking Gun! We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.7 That’s what happens when the government gets your business, they leak it out. The government has no right to have photographs of your private areas. Because somebody said something, or somebody whispered something. Because somebody took a payoff. Or somebody wanted to look for a mark, as Jay Leno said, of this family. Of this “Janet Jackson” Latina. How dare Sneddon even………….why isn’t Sneddon the laughing stock of Santa Barbara right now? Why aren’t they turning on him?
Now honestly, if I really thought that if Michael Jackson was a danger to society, and he really was ripping people up to shreds, and he’s made a lot of mistakes here, the way he discards people along the way is frightening, I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup. At some point here, somebody’s gotta say that “Michael Jackson is not a danger, and where is the evidence?” And when they got the girl to admit, when Mesereau got the girl to admit, under oath, that “Yeah, I’ve lied about this case, and I didn’t always tell the full story because I’m young, but I didn’t know it was wine, I assumed it was wine, it was in the wineroom”. It could have been some of Madonna’s Kabbalah wine! Crazy! We want Sneddon’s photographs of his peepee! I’ll post those! I’ve got a website that’s not owned by Warren Buffet! It’s Drudge on Sunday night.
1.” yeah, she lied about the case”: The entire Arivizo family was a complete disaster for the prosecution, and their testimony was the most exculpatory of all of the evidence presented to the jury at trial! Davellin’s testimony was no exception. It was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, and since I can’t possibly summarize all of her lies in this post, I’ll have to point you in the right direction to see the others posts that do. For example, in this post I summarized how she claimed that she saw MJ giving her brothers alcohol while on the witness stand, but forgot to mention it to the investigators during her July 2003 interview with them! (Read bullet point #6 at the bottom.) Here is MJEOL’s summary, which is aptly titled “Sister Testimony Dismantled, Family Not Coerced on Video”. And here is a short excerpt of her testimony, where she describes how she didn’t know she had been molested until her mother told her so!
17 Q. Do you recall your mother ever telling the
18 Los Angeles Police Department that David had
19 molested you.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you recall Gavin ever making any
22 allegations of molestation before.
23 A. Gavin never made any to David. What that
24 was, was that the Judge — the detective had asked
25 my mother, “Is there anything you want to get off
26 your chest.” And she said, “Well, one time when she
27 was younger,” and I know, because I was there when
28 the detective came. But that court proceeding had 870
1 nothing to do with this. The detective just asked
2 her, “If you wanted to get anything off your chest.”
3 Q. To your mother.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you recall Gavin making any allegations
6 before this case.
7 A. Never did.
8 Q. Did you ever hear anything about that.
9 A. He never did. He never has.
10 Q. Do you ever recall — did anyone ever tell
11 you that they had heard Gavin had made an allegation
12 against your mother.
13 A. He never has. He never has made any
14 allegations against anybody.
15 Q. Okay. Do you know if he‟s ever made them
16 with anyone with the Department of Children & Family
18 A. He never has.
19 Q. You‟re sure of that.
20 A. Yes, I‟m sure.
21 Q. Were you there when they interviewed him.
22 A. No, but I know him.
23 Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, you‟ve
24 never heard anything about Gavin ever making any
25 other allegation about molestation against anybody.
26 A. No.
27 Q. Okay. Never.
28 A. Against my parents, I‟ve never heard him say 871
1 any allegations.
2 Q. My question is this: Have you ever — has
3 anyone ever told you, regardless of whether you
4 think it‟s true or not, that Gavin ever made an
5 allegation against your mother before.
6 A. No. Never made an allegation against my
8 Q. Okay. I‟m not asking if you think he did it
9 or not. I‟m asking if anyone‟s ever told you they
10 had heard that he had.
11 A. No.
12 Q. You don‟t know anything about it.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were you ever interviewed by the Department
15 of Children & Family Services during the 1990s.
16 A. One lady had came over to the East L.A.
18 Q. Do you know approximately when that was.
19 A. No, I don‟t.
20 Q. Okay. Were you interviewed.
21 A. I don‟t remember if I was.
22 Q. Do you know if Gavin was interviewed.
23 A. I don‟t remember if any of us were. I know
24 she spoke to my mom; but I don‟t know if we were
25 interviewed. I don‟t remember.
26 Q. Did you ever talk to your mom about that
28 A. No. 872
1 Q. Ever discussed it with your mom.
2 A. No.
3 Q. You don‟t know what happened.
4 A. I don‟t remember.
5 Q. Okay. Now, at some point you reported your
6 father to the Los Angeles police, right.
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss with your mother
9 in advance what you were going to say to the police.
10 A. No, I didn‟t.
11 Q. Never talked about it at all with her.
12 A. I kept it to myself for a couple days,
13 because I was scared.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. Still scared of him. And then I told her
16 what happened. And then she told me we should tell
17 the police.
18 Q. Okay. And did you call the police.
19 A. She called the police, and then the
20 detective came over.
21 Q. Okay. You told the police that you were
22 being abused five times a week — five times a week,
24 A. We were abused every day, more than once, by
25 my father.
26 Q. Okay. Were you there when your mother was
28 A. I — I don‟t remember if she was 873
1 interviewed. I just remember the detective coming
2 to the East L.A. apartment.
3 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of
4 falsely imprisoning you.
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, did your
7 mother accuse your father of falsely imprisoning
9 A. Not that I remember.
10 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of
11 terrorist threats.
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Did your mother accuse your father of
14 terrorist threats.
15 A. Not that I remember.
16 Q. All right. And you accused your father of
17 willful harm to a child, right.
18 A. I don‟t know what that is.
19 Q. Okay. Okay. But were you present when your
20 mother told the LAPD that your father had molested
22 A. No, but I had heard when he had asked her,
23 “If you want to get anything off your chest,” and
24 she said, “Yes,” and that‟s when they went to the
25 kitchen area of the East L.A. apartment.
26 Q. But when you were interviewed by the police,
27 you never told them your father had molested you,
28 did you. 874
1 A. Because they weren‟t asking me about that,
2 and I didn‟t know. I was very young.
3 Q. Okay. Okay.
4 Have you ever discussed with your mother
5 what your father did to you.
6 A. They were both present that day.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. He had — she had said, “Well, I never told
9 Davellin that.” And he says, “Well” — he said,
10 “Well, she doesn‟t need to know anyways.”
11 It was just a horrible experience for me to
12 find out that he did that to me when I was young.
13 Q. And you found that out through your mother.
14 A. From both of them. Because he had agreed to
15 it when I was standing right there. Because they
16 were having an argument, and my mom screamed it out
17 at him.
18 Q. And your father agreed he had done that.
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Do you want to take a second.
21 A. I‟m fine.
22 Q. Do you want to wait one second.
23 A. I‟m okay.
24 Q. Ready to go.
25 A. Yeah.
2. “Jackson was molesting Gavin.” Notice how in the first episode, he didn’t name by Gavin by name because he had to respect his privacy as an accuser, but now he’s naming him with no hesitation! This is a clear indication that he has absolute doubt towards Gavin’s allegations! I guess Drudge was right; he has no shame!
3. “Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!” This is probably the most on-point message that he gave to his listeners throughout this trial. Many people just assume that what happened to MJ was an aberration, but malicious prosecutions take place all of the time in this country! The prisons are filled with innocent people who were wrongly convicted because of crooked cops who plant evidence, disreputable prosecutors who allow perjury and falsified evidence, and who also fail to inform the jurors of all of the exculpatory evidence found in their investigations. (Fortunately, there is legislation that is being proposed that will help curb this wrongful practice.) A perfect example of normal, everyday citizens who were unjustly prosecuted are the three Duke lacrosse players who were wrongfully accused of rape, but exonerated by the Attorney General of their state after a thorough investigation into the practices of the District Attorney. (Their case was discussed in detail in this post that refutes the notion that MJ’s settlements were signs of guilt. I used their case as an example of non-celebrities who are maliciously prosecuted.)
As you can see with this article, Sneddon isn’t the only malicious prosecutor in California! But can you blame prosecutors for putting convictions ahead of justice? There’s a certain former prosecutor who now has one of the highest rated shows on cable television, despite her past reprimands for misconduct, and you guys already know who I’m talking about!
4. “The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case.” Here is a quote from Malcom X, one of the greatest, yet most underrated civil rights activists of the 20th century:
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
He took the words right out of Drudge’s mouth! The media is so powerful, they can make you look guilty even before you’ve been accused of committing a crime! For example, in this video a 4 year old black boy was interviewed by a news reporter while at the scene of a recent shooting in his neighborhood, and he said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that he wanted to be a cop when he gets older, and he wants to own a gun. But when his interview hit the airwaves, the reporter excluded his comment about wanting to be a cop, which gave viewers the impression that he’s going to grow up and emulate the violence he sees around him. “Oh great. Just what the world needs; another young thug. They’re getting younger and younger, eh?” This is a perfect example of how the media distorts quotes for their own purposes, especially when it comes to painting African-Americans in a negative light. Do you think this would have happened in a white upscale suburban community?
5. . “Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?” Are you kidding me? Sneddon, actually questioning any accusation of molestation against Michael Jackson? Are you insane? He probably jumped for joy and high-fived his assistants when Stan Katz reported the allegations to them in May 2003! Here’s a rundown of some of Sneddon’s shenanigans: he altered the dates of the allged molestations and added the conspiracy charge after realizing that his initial timeline conflicted with the DCFS investigation, he attempted to falsify evidence by having Gavin handle the girlie magazines without gloves at the grand jury hearing, he requested that Gavin be allowed to testify in private, solicited other “victims” to testify against Michael soon after his arrest, he changed the law to prevent future accusers from suing MJ in civil court before the disposition of a criminal case, he not only ignored Janet’s schizophrenia, but tried to suppress it from the jury and defense, and the icing on the cake is when he claimed that he did an “excellent” job in his prosecution! (See the video below in bullet point #7.) I can go on and on and on, but I’ll stop there.
For those of you who would like to know more about how Janet’s schizophrenia was ignorded by the prosecution, please read my good friend Sean Chai’s “The Untold Story”. She is one of the foremost experts on the allegations in the world, and I enthusiastically recommend her new blog, appropriately titled “Smoke Without Fire”!!
6. “The description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!” Anyone with any common sense should know that those photos didn’t match! Even without the Linden report, or the January 1994 USA Today article, the mere fact that MJ wasn’t arrested and was allowed to make his videotaped statement a few days later should prove it didn’t’ match! In order to arrest someone, you must have probably cause. The search warrant that Sneddon obtained was to establish the probable cause needed to arrest MJ, and since he walked away without his prized possession, that should tell you something. If you listen to hater’s speculation, they would have you think that somehow MJ paid off Sneddon, the same way he paid off the two grand juries who refused to indict him in 1994, the jury who acquitted him in 2005, and the FBI, who found no evidence of wrongdoing in over 10 years!
We have debunked that “Jordan’s description matched” nonsense numerous times on this blog, including in this post, and this post (which is the 1st of a 3 part series.)
7. “We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.” Well Drudge, it’s been 6 years, and you’re still waiting, huh? That’s because those photos are NOT going to leak, now or ever! According to Sneddon, neither he nor the Sheriff’s department has the photos in their possession, and you know what? I actually believe him! Because if he had them in his possession, they would have leaked before the trial! Sneddon was willing to do ANYTHING to dirty up MJ and convict him in the court of public opinion! The tabloids were offering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for those photos, and if someone had access to them, they would have taken the money for sure! If Sneddon and his team didn’t mind leaking the grand jury transcripts –which was totally illegal, by the way – then he surely would have leaked those photos, which would have been perfectly legal!
In this video, he talks about his “excellent” prosecution, how “great” and “courageous” Gavin was, his not having said a word about MJ in 10 years (which is total BS – here is a list of his comments, listed under the “Sneddon’s Obsession with Jackson” section), and how he needs 2 signatures to access the photos. If they haven’t leaked by now, they’ll never leak!
And did you guys notice the terrible, softball questions that Rita Crosby threw at him? I mean, come on! Asking him what he would say to MJ if he saw him walking down the street? As if ANY of us would ever see MJ “walking down the street”! The summer interns at MSNBC could come up with better questions than that! She should have asked him about the conspiracy charge, the changing timeline, and specific quotes from the Arvizo family’s testimony!
8. “I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup.” July 2005, Feldman did an interview with the New York Times, and he describes how he was duped by a certain British journalist who is good at getting people to trust him:
Meanwhile, Mr. Feldman says he now tries to stay out of the tabloids, but it has not been easy. In February he made news in an interview with the British journalist Martin Bashir, in which he said that he had come to a sickening realization that the molestation charges against Mr. Jackson might be true. Mr. Feldman, who had a falling-out with Mr. Jackson in 2001, says that he was shocked by the verdict. But he sounds even more upset at Mr. Bashir. “Bashir approached me with doing a 20/20 retrospective about my career,” Mr. Feldman explained. “He said he would ask about Michael, but it would only be a small portion of the show. We shot 36 hours of footage, and it was a 20-minute Michael Jackson piece. Tricked again.”
“I’m gullible,” Mr. Feldman says. “The world needs a scapegoat, plain and simple. Somewhere, there was an electoral ballot, and I was nominated.”
That should put away any doubts about how conniving and deceptive Bashir really is, as if there was anyone reading this blog who still had any doubts! Gee, I wonder what Bashir did with the other 35 hours and 40 minutes of footage?
In part 2 of this series, I will analyze the final two Matt Drudge shows that I currently have in my possession. I am currently working on getting them uploaded to the internet, as soon as I do I’ll add them to this post and to the blogroll! I am also trying to get any additional episodes, including the post-acquittal episode!
June 3rd marks the nineteenth anniversary of another accomplishment of Michael’s. Today, back in 1992, Michael was recognized with an award by “Operation One To One” for his efforts in helping disadvantaged youth.
A recent interview with Siggy Jackson, Jackie Jackson’s son, is sure to leave you impressed at the things he’s accomplished on his own with minimal help from his famous name.
Interview: Poetry In Motion: The Real Dealz
It’s a story we’re all familiar with; the humble beginnings of a family in Gary, Indiana that skyrockets to pop star status thus forever changing the scope of the entertainment business forever.
You got it, I’m talking about the infamous Jackson Family, and until recently, there hasn’t been a Jackson presence in the world of hip hop.
Allow me to introduce to you a man that has effortlessly captured the essence of what it means to pour your heart and soul into your craft. He’s not the soft spoken type of Jackson that we are all used to, instead, Siggy Jackson better known as ‘Dealz’ is one of the most keeping-it-real type of men I’ve had the pleasure of speaking to. He’s the Jackson that you just never know what he might say, but he’s got an old soul that’s full of insightful knowledge and a ton of energy. Dealz is the son of Jackie Jackson, yes that means the late undisputed King of Pop, Michael Jackson is his uncle, but that’s not the point of this interview.
Who is Dealz?
Dealz is a talented rapper and songwriter, as well as a motorcycle and car enthusiast, but you may
recognize him from the late Aaliyah’s video for One in a Million, the film Biker Boyz, or even The Jacksons: A Family Dynasty reality show
just to name a few of his entertainment ventures.
In a family full of singers, Dealz was the one that ventured into his own lane, “When we did talent shows when I was a kid, in front of my aunts and uncles, that’s nerve wracking enough, but everyone else was singing and I always rapped. Singing has never been my strong suit, and I won’t hide behind a façade and say it is. Besides, rap is in my heart, to me it’s more poetic,” says Dealz.
And boy does Dealz have a way with words. His new single, That’s How I Feel features his father Jackie and his uncle Jermaine Jackson. Combined with their smooth sultry timeless vocals, Dealz adds lyrics that give off a sensual poetic vibe, “My father and uncle came to me with the song already finished, they said they didn’t know what else to do with it, so I said, let me have it, I know exactly what to do with it. The song is me basically telling my father how I feel about women. You don’t have to call women names and demean and degrade them just to have a song.” In a time when rap lyrics have taken a turn for the worst in my opinion, this song is a breath of fresh air. It’s nice to hear a song that respects women and appreciates them as a whole. Hopefully, others will take notice and change their tune, but I digress.
Click above to hear his new single “That’s How I Feel”, click here to buy/download.
While Dealz may have been influenced by the likes of EMPD, Run DMC, Tupac, and Biggie, he also has had the opportunity of a lifetime that most artists will never get to witness up close and personal; the infamous Jackson magic in the studio, “It’s a great feeling watching my father and uncle work together again after all these years, seeing them being able to pull everything together is awesome.”
But don’t think that Dealz jumped into the music game because of his family’s name. In fact, he says, “Music has always been a part of me, but I decided to pursue it because I wanted to bring a change to music. It’s not about the money or material things, for me music is more about helping others, if they get something out of the music, then I’ve done my job,” spoken like a man that knows how to follow his heart and passion.
Mr. Jackson is also all about paving his own way. “Nothing has ever been handed to me; I have worked hard for everything that I have. I’ve even done street promotions for other artists. It’s important that I do continue to represent my family, but more importantly continue to respect the name and brand that they have worked to build.”
His much-anticipated debut album is expected to be released on an independent label sometime this summer, but with several more singles to be released first. When Dealz isn’t in the studio or performing, you can find him following his other passion: “anything that burns gas, motorcycles, muscle cars, you name it.” While he’s no stranger to burning up the road himself, he’s also an avid race fan that enjoys watching everything from Rally Racing to NASCAR.
Dealz is also fueling his passion for cars by honoring Michael Jackson’s memory, “We just built a custom dedication vehicle to my Uncle Michael named Melody. It’s a 2005 black and red Mustang with custom interior, with about 550 Horsepower under the hood.” I’m sure Michael would have loved it since that car is Bad! (Pun totally intended! See video below!)
Oh yes ladies, Dealz is single, but he’s married to his music for right now. For now, (or right after you run to iTunes and purchase ‘That’s How I Feel‘) you can follow him on twitter @officialdealz and catch he and his father Jackie on The Monique Show , May 4th 11pm on BET.
The statue unveiled in China on the first of this year won’t be the only monument to pay homage to Michael. According to the Fulham chief, another statue will make its debut in Craven Cottage, located in downtown London.
This statue of Michael, in one of his most iconic poses, will be erected on the banks of the River Thames adjacent to the stadium’s Hammersmith and Riverside stands.
The unveiling will take place Sunday, April 3.