Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 3 of 3
Pay close attention to bullet point #6 to see the foundation of Sneddon’s baseless case against MJ, and how he was able to railroad MJ into getting an indictment from the grand jury!
The Matt Drudge Show: April 17th, 2005
Matt Drudge: Michael Jackson is being charged with all sorts of charges, where he could spend the rest of his adult life in prison. They’ve announced at the California level that he will spend it in the prison where Charlie Manson resides. That’s how serious the crimes are that they’ve accused him of. But the case has been falling apart, week by week by week, and now we even get the harem of women who have been leading the charges, the Nancy Grace, and Diane Dimond now has come around and said “You know what? The case is falling apart!” And for Diane Dimond, who has been out there basically carrying the water for prosecutor Sneddon, and we’re all wondering what is going to happen to Sneddon after all of this once the jury comes out and says “You know what? Why was this case even brought? This looks strange.” Diane Dimond has even turned. But a gentleman who has been very clear from the beginning, because he has been looking at the evidence, not in the public perceptions, not in the slanting of what has been happening, he works for Fox News, and he first reported last week that Michael Jackson has an offer on the table to sell the Beatles catalogue to get some money, honey, and he joins us tonight live from the coast. Thanks again Roger!
Roger Friedman: You’re welcome, Matt.
Matt Drudge: We’re pretty wound up here tonight.
Roger Friedman: I see that. Out here in California we’re very laid back.
Matt Drudge: How? If you’ve seen what has happened in that courtroom, and you actually wrote a column this weekend saying “This trial must end! Stop this! This is ridiculous! These charges are not to be taken seriously!” Why did you did you feel the need to write that column on that Fox News spot?
Roger Friedman: Well, I have to say that on Friday….Thursday was bad enough, but on Friday the cross-examination of the mother of this accuser in this case was so devastating, and not just because she lied a lot, and admitted to it, she admitted to a lot of lying on the stand on Friday, but it’s pretty clear that she’s mentally ill in some way. Maybe she’s schizophrenic, she’s been hospitalized at a couple of mental hospitals1, we don’t know what the reasons were, but it seems clear that there must have been a reason, and she may be more than just paranoid and schizophrenic, we started to see two and three different versions of her at the same time, and it was kinda telling when they played the rebuttal video, this is the video that was made of her and her three children back in February 2003 to support Michael Jackson, saying “Yeah, he’s a great guy”……
Matt Drudge: What she said was scripted by the German, right? She said the German guy who could barely speak English was scripting every word down to the hand holding…..
Roger Friedman: She changed her story. Originally, she said that they had supplied her with sort of the bones of the script, but now she’s saying that they gave her a word for word script that she and her children all memorized ten times a day, with the German managers of Michael Jackson coaching her. This is very funny, for one thing I know the German managers, and their command of English isn’t that good, they certainly didn’t write a word for word script of anything, and certainly there was no time for her to spend ten times a day with them to learn it, so……..
Matt Drudge: Mesereau, in cross, asked her “How long did it take you to learn the script of a twenty, thirty minute video? How long did it take you?” And she said she didn’t have an answer!
Roger Friedman: She didn’t have an answer. Well, there’s a lot of things she’ didn’t have an answer to because she’s making up things off the top of her head now! He also said that it’s a completely different version of any story that you’ve told to a grand jury or to an investigator. What seems clear to us in the courtroom is that when she firsts starts testifying, she’s very sedate, and as time goes by, and possibly medication wears off, she becomes crazier and crazier, and you can hear people in the courtroom saying “here it comes”, where she sort of slips after a couple of hours and loses control, and becomes very emotional.
Matt Drudge: Well now hold on for a second Roger, the Jacko haters will say this is the very type of family he would abuse and take advantage of go for the crazy ones2, the problem is it’s not consistent in the stories that she’s telling, and it looks much more like she’s falling apart on the cross, and as if she’s been making things up. I want to ask you point blank, Roger Friedman, is there talk out there of charging her with perjury?
Are charges possibly looming of Michael Jackson getting HIS day in court against this family, against this prosecutor, against these witnesses who come in here and possibly perjured themselves?3
Roger Friedman: So far we haven’t heard any talk of perjury. This is going to be interesting on the part of the district attorney. Is he going to turn around and prosecute his own witnesses for lying on the stand?
Matt Drudge: This is a very important question, be the way, that’s a very key question.
Roger Friedman: And we’ve had a lot of that. We’ve had a lot of people admit………..one woman who used to work at Neverland actually said on the stand “Well OK, I lied about everything….”
Matt Drudge: There’s no consequence now in the California Judicial System if you get caught lying or perjuring yourself in proceedings? There’s no consequence whatsoever?!!
Roger Friedman: Well, of course there is. But we’re not even allowed to ask any questions, because of the gag order that’s in place, we’re not allowed to ask any questions. You know, this is a very peculiar case. I’ve never …
Matt Drudge: And of course the media being what it is, nobody dared asked Sneddon before that “Are you prepared to charge the family if they’re lying?”4
Roger Friedman: Right.
Matt Drudge: Even before the proceedings. So anyone looking these papers when they were filed, it was very suspicious from the get-go.
Roger Friedman: It certainly……the minute the gag order is lifted, which presumable will happen when the case is over, that’ll probably be the first question that’s asked. But it’s a very peculiar case because you can’t ask any questions, and you can’t interview anybody. It seems like some people do have an inside track.5
Matt Drudge: Roger, you have taken some heat out there, I’ve been on the receiving end of some of your emails, you’ve been out there questioning the case from the beginning, when it wasn’t popular to question it. You’ve raised all sorts of questions about this family when it seemed like they were so innocent and Michael Jackson was the freak. Do you feel a little vindication now as we get towards the finish line, Lord help us, if Sneddon finally wraps up his case before there’s no case at all left to be wrapped up?
Roger Friedman: I do, because I feel…………around a year and a half ago, I was told the entire story, by people who really knew it. And I have to say that I’ve not been surprised once. Every single person has come through exactly as described. Which makes me really think that there is no case, more than ever. Do I know if Michael Jackson has molested children in the past? I have no idea. Is it possible? Sure. But in this particular case, with this particular family, I feel that a real mistake was made. You know, the Santa Barbara district attorney has been waiting since 1993 to bring someone in here that they can use to convict Michael Jackson.6 And I think this was the wrong group of people to do it with.
Matt Drudge: Also, you have to wonder what is the repercussions of a judicial system where you can have a prosecutor going through a grand jury, bringing these charges, dragging his name, Michael Jackson, through the mud like this, the ridicule of an entire media industrial complex , as it’s been for month after month after month, people assuming he did it, people saying “well, if somebody in court is saying it, it must be true”, where does he go to get his good name back? Or is he just now such damaged goods that he’s forever just going to be playing the E.U.? How much longer, where is Sneddon now? What is he promising? I guess she’s still on the cross on Monday? Is he going to just keep splashing away at her, and try to get her to, I don’t know, roll on the floor? What else can you do to her? She’s literally helpless up there. Like you said, showing different personalities. Even Diane Dimond, writing in the New York Post today, “You know what? This mother is not happening in the courtroom7”. And if she’s saying that she has turned on Sneddon to save her face, everybody’s now saving face out there in the courtroom.
Roger Friedman: Well, Sneddon says, Sneddon took a position on Friday in the court, where he sat behind the other prosecutors during her questioning, and had his head in his hands, and in very full view of the jury, looked disgusted. And that was a very bad sign because this was his witness! This is the person that he brought this whole case on. And now it looks like he’s backing away from her. Very bad.
Matt Drudge: Well she’s probably deviated from the script.
Roger Friedman: If there was a script! She can’t memorize a script! That was a great moment when she said “I’m not a good actress!”, and Mesereau said “You’re a fine actress!”.
Matt Drudge: She said she was acting like the Catwoman Halle Berry, she’s really sassy. You were in the courtroom, was she actually like addressing the jury the jury at one point, and then addressing Mesreau? She had been addressing the judge, she had like full command, this was her little circus!
Roger Friedman: Well, she almost never addresses Mesereau in response to a question. When he asks her a question, she turns to the jury and then proceeds to give a long, digressive answer. Which no one objects to! Which is very strange, because with every other witness they’ve objected to any long answer, but here it just goes on and on. The jury stares at her in disbelief as she tells a long answer which has very little to do with what was asked of her. Sometimes, she’s actually address us, the press, in the back of the room, where she’ll say things like “You’re good guys, I know that!”, and we can’t respond to this, but it’s a complete show, and it doesn’t make any sense, and it’s not……………..you know, we laugh about it, and
Matt Drudge: No, it’s scary because they’re very serious charges, and there’s nothing worse in this country than being accused of molesting young boys8, and what they have done here is very serious Roger, and I think Sneddon knew the case was weak going into it, I swear I think he did, and I hope the jury gives him hell on that verdict day when they come out and say “Why was this case brought?” Roger Friedman will be one of the good guys on that day. We’ve gotta cut, we’re on a time break, but I do appreciate you coming in!
Roger Friedman: Matt, thank you!
Matt Drudge: We’ll continue to link up over at the Drudge Report, because you were there ahead of the pack, and they’re all following you now! Diane Dimond is racing around the corner trying to catch up! Thanks again, roger Friedman!
Roger Friedman: Thank you.
Matt Drudge: “Time to end the Jacko trial” he writes. You heard that here a year ago.
If it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us. If you’ve got a prosecutor who wants you and wants you bad. Prosecutorial abuse right now should be a major issue. I even think that if they were really smart, the White House would get involved in this case9. You can laugh at me, but it’s so egregious, the missteps, the false claims, the perjuries out there. It is a court gone crazy! And I’m very concerned that this is going to continue. Clinton started it. You can in and say anything in court. I give you permission now to perjure yourself and lie and point fingers and mock and there’s no consequence at all!10 Why not? Have a circus of it! If they’re gonna do that us, if they’re gonna do that to citizens of this country, we should do it back at them. That is what’s at stake here! And I don’t know why other people are not jumping all over this! The integrity of the court system at stake with this! What is going to be done to those who have perjured themselves in this case? What is going to be done out there, California? Wake up! It’s horrifying to think what is going to happen to judicial system if you can go in there and lie, and point fingers, and say all these terrible things, and it didn’t happen! When you’re joking, and you’re laughing, and you’re plotting when you’re shopping, getting your legs waxed11 .
1. “Maybe she’s schizophrenic, she’s been hospitalized at a couple of mental hospitals”. She certainly IS schizophrenic! Janet was diagnosed with this mental disorder by a psychiatrist who was hired by JC Penney to evaluate her after she filed her frivolous lawsuit in 1999, first claiming that she had been battered, falsely imprisoned, and subject to emotional distress, and subsequently amending the lawsuit in 2000 to claim that she had been sexually assaulted, punched in her face, and molested in her genital areas!
For the complete story of her shakedown of JC Penney, please scroll to the bottom of this post.
2. Also, many MJ haters at that time defended Sneddon’s ludicrous and ever-changing timeline by saying that the period right after the airing of the documentary is exactly the time that he would choose to abuse Gavin, because nobody would believe that he would have the gall to abuse him while he was under so much scrutiny. Let’s look at what notorious MJ hater Wendy Murphy had to say in Martin Bashir’s second hit piece “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”:
To some extent I believe that this is the weakness of the prosecution’s case. On the other hand, this is probably why Michael Jackson chose that period of time to molest the child. He knew he would be insulated from prosecution, because what law enforcement official would ever take on a case where the child who’s accusing him was, only 2 weeks earlier, in a video claiming Michael Jackson had never touched him and was the best guy on the planet?
This is typical of the type of “analysis” that was provided throughout the trial, and when you consider the fact that it comes from someone with an extensive history of lying, and gleefully predicted that the Duke Lacrosse players would be convicted, it really shouldn’t surprise you. Try to keep a straight face as you watch her defend the disgraced and now disbarred former DA Mike Nifong, who maliciously prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse players.
3. “Are charges possibly looming of Michael Jackson getting HIS day in court against this family, against this prosecutor, against these witnesses who come in here and possibly perjured themselves?” Many people have wondered why Michael didn’t try to sue Sneddon or the Arvizos, but in all likelihood it is because he was both physically, mentally, and financially exhausted from his 5 month trial. Sure, in the court of public opinion it would have looked good (as most people would say “if someone falsely accused me of child molestation I would sue the pants off them!!”), but even if MJ had sued, the damage was done. His name and reputation were shattered, and he needed time to recover. Leaving for Bahrain was one of the best decisions he ever made, as it gave him the peace and sanctity he so desperately needed.
4. “Nobody dared asked Sneddon before that “Are you prepared to charge the family if they’re lying?” You can see for yourself the softball questions that were lobbed at Sneddon at his November 18th, 2003 press conference on the MJ Truth Now website. Its 40 minutes of unprofessionalism, arrogance, and outright lies! Nobody even entertained the thought that MJ could be innocent! My favorite question was when one of the reporters asked why MJ was being allowed to keep custody of his kids, and Sheriff Jim Anderson said it’s because he’s innocent until proven guilty!
And here is Dan Abrahm’s softball interview with Ron Zonen after the trial! I’m sure they went out and had drinks afterwards, judging by their “chemistry”!
5. “It seems like some people do have an inside track.” Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the allegations and media bias against MJ already knows who Drudge is referring to! Here is Part 1 and Part 2 of a detailed and extensive dossier of her “journalism”!
6. “You know, the Santa Barbara district attorney has been waiting since 1993 to bring someone in here that they can use to convict Michael Jackson” Let’s focus on the last the last part of this quote: “bring someone in here that they can USE to convict Michael Jackson.” As a prosecutor, your job is to seek justice, not a conviction! Your job is to use professional skepticism when evaluating the merits of an allegation. Your job is to respect the constitutional rights of the accused to a quick, speedy, and fair trial in front of a jury of his peers. It’s not to “use” people to convict someone that you don’t like! It’s not to exploit and enable their lies by falsifying fingerprint evidence, lying to grand jurors about the meaning of a “conspiracy”, changing the dates of the alleged molestations upon the discovery of exculpatory evidence, asking your deputies to become paid informants for you at Neverland, selectively leaking grand jury transcripts, and numerous other egregious examples of misconduct from top to bottom!
Let me take this chance to briefly describe the changing of the dates and the addition of the conspiracy charge out of thin air!
In the initial felony complaint that was filed on December 18th, 2003, MJ was charged with 7 counts of “lewd acts” upon a child and 2 counts of administering an intoxicant between February 7th and March 10th, 2003, but in the grand jury indictment filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates changed to February 20th and March 12th, 2003, the number of lewd acts decreased to only 4 counts, an “attempted lewd act” charge was added, the counts of administration of an intoxicant increased to 4, and all of a sudden there was a charge of conspiracy to engage in child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion, with five “co-conspirators” unindicted, despite their refusal of full immunity in exchange for their testimony against MJ! From the “Jackson Charged with Conspiracy to Kidnap” section of the Veritas Project:
Another problem with the conspiracy allegation is that although five of Jackson’s associates were allegedly involved in the kidnapping of the family, Jackson is the only one who has been charged with a crime. The five alleged co-conspirators remain un-indicted and have all been offered immunity if they agree to testify against Jackson.
Joe Tacopina, an attorney for one of the accused co-conspirators, insists that his client has rejected Sneddon’s offer of immunity and maintains that the Arvizo family’s claims are ludicrous.
Here is the defense’s motion to have Janet Arvizo subjected to a mental examination, where they described the aforementioned discrepancies between the initial complaint and indictment. From pages 9 through 11 (much of it was redacted, as this motion was attached to a prosecution motion to oppose it):
Mr. Michael Jackson submits this Memorandum in support of his Motion for Mental Examination of Complaining Witnesses. Mr. Jackson’s motion is based on the following grounds:
(1) The prosecution opened the door to permit a mental examination of the complaining witnesses by offering its own mental examination end expert testimony concerning their mental condition, and the complaining witnesses have waived the provisions of Penal Code section 1112 by employing an expert psychologist to examine the witnesses’ mental status and provide expert testimony of mental condition;
(2) Mr. Jackson cannot effectively cross-examine and confront prosecution expert witness Psychologist Stanley Katz unless he is permitted equal access to the subject matter of the expert’s mental examination, which are the complaining witnesses, and precluding equal access to the witnesses for examination deprives Mr. Jackson of Ins Sixth .Amendment rights to confront and a cross-examine expert witnesses against him.
A. Statement of the Case
1. Plaintiff7’s Complaint.
Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2003, charging Mr. Jackson with seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code section 288a and two (2) counts of administration an intoxicant to a minor in violation of Penal Code section 222. The Complaint was based on interviews from three (3) complaining witnesses: Janet Arvizo, then age 35, who is the mother of the two (2) minor complaining witnesses, Star Arvizo, then age 14, and Gavin Arvizo, then age 13.
The complaint was based on more than seven (7) interviews conducted with the complaining witnesses by Psychologist Stanley Katz. Stanley Katz detailed the alleged conduct that formed the basis of the complaint, and the complaint mirrored his interviews and reports to law enforcement. In addition, law enforcement conducted more than two (2) dozen interviews with the complaining witnesses, and more than a hundred separate interviews with other witnesses.
Mr. Jackson voluntarily surrendered to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office on November 20, 2003, and was arraigned on the original charges on January 16, 2004. Mr. Jackson pleaded not guilty. However, the prosecution soon abandoned the December 18, 2003, Complaint and convened a Grand Jury to return an Indictment against Mr. Jackson. Without the benefit of witness cross-examination, the Grand Jury issued an indictment on April 26, 2004, consisting of one (1) count of conspiracy with five (5) other-unindicted individuals in violation of Penal Code section 1S2, four (4) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code section 288a, one (1) count of Attempted Lewd Act Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 288a, and four (4) counts of Administration an Intoxicant Ln the Commission of a Felony in violation of Penal Code section 222.
2. The witnesses changed the dates and facts for the indictment
The Indictment was markedly different from the December 18, 2003, Complaint. The Complaint contained seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child, where the Indictment contained only four (4), plus one of Attempted Lewd Act Upon a Child. Somewhere, the perception of the facts in this case was significantly altered, and the Indictment no longer followed the details and chronology recounted by Psychologist Katz.
In addition, the Complaint alleged two (2) counts of Administration of an Intoxicant, where the Indictment alleged four (4). In view of repeated interviews and witness statements, the change in facts, counts, and dates has created an irreconcilable inconsistency with no explanation.
The dates of the alleged crimes also changed. The Complaint said five (5) of the seven (7) “lewd acts” allegedly occurred “on or between February 7, 2003 and March 10, 2003,” and all the other counts occurred between February 20 and March 10, 2003. But the Indictment now says that all but the new conspiracy charges occurred between February 20, and March 12. 2003. Now it is a conspiracy starting February 7, but no lewd act until February 20. This was not just a narrowing of the time period, but it was also a lengthening of the time period. Suddenly, something happened on March 12 that was not included in the Complaint.
In the Indictment, Mr. Jackson was charged with conspiracy to engage in Child Abduction, False Imprisonment, and Extortion. He was not indicted on the actual objects of the conspiracy itself, nor were these acts charged as stand-alone crimes or attempted crimes. Not even the alleged co-conspirators arc charged with the crimes.
This is a perfect example of why I think that the Michael Jackson trial should be studied in each and every law school in the country! If the American justice system doesn’t learn from its past mistakes, then it’s doomed to repeat them!
Here is Mesereau’s explanation of the reason that Sneddon used the conspiracy charge. From the “Frozen In Time” seminar:
The prosecution was out to get him in the best way that they could, and I understand that, but I think the person they chose as the victim, as the accuser, and particularly that person’s family, were really a disaster for them. They brought a conspiracy charge that Michael Jackson had masterminded a criminal conspiracy to abduct children, commit extortion, and falsely imprison a family. Michael Jackson couldn’t even imagine such behavior, let alone orchestrate it. And what that charge did for them, and I can’t get in the minds of the prosecutors, but here’s what I think they were doing, is that allowed the mother, who was really the lynchpin of that a lot of the case, to bring in co-conspirator hearsay under the exception. It allowed them to intimidate witnesses who were at Neverland because they would too fearful they would be indicted as conspirators. Great conspiracy here! The only person they charged was Michael Jackson. Everyone else was unindicted. She brings hearsay testimony in, the witnesses that can refute it are terrified to come to court for fear that they’ll be indicted, so they lawyer up. And plus, it makes Michael Jackson look like this “Mafioso-type” guru, which he’s not even capable of being.
7. “You know what? This mother is not happening in the courtroom.” Here is the “expert analysis” that Drudge is referring to: Dimond’s column “Ma’s Blab Backfires” from April 17th, 2005. Pure garbage, hands down.
8. “No, it’s scary because they’re very serious charges, and there’s nothing worse in this country than being accused of molesting young boys.” Actually Drudge, there is something that is worse than molesting young boys, according to MJ’s former private investigator Anthony Pellicano. While currently serving time in federal prison for wiretapping conspiracy charges, he recently gave an interview to Christine Pelisek of The Daily Beast website, and in it he left an indelible stain on his legacy of defending MJ’s innocence, even after he resigned from the 1993 case due to disagreements with MJ’s new lawyers. Here is the quote that has forever sullied his relationship with fans:
Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ” The detective took the assignment, but says, “I quit because I found out some truths…He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.” But he refuses to say anything more about it. It’s as if Pellicano wants to send Hollywood a reminder: I know which closets hold the skeletons.
If Pelisek had an ounce of journalist integrity, she would have either demanded that Pellicano specify his comment, or not include the comment at all! For her to leave an insinuation in her interview and not challenge or clarify it, is utterly bush league of her. Even college interns would know to ask a follow question!
Just to show you the amount of disdain that even prisoners have for child molesters, let’s look at the special slang word that is used to identify them: chomo! Child molesters are referred to as “chomos” in prison and are routinely segregated from the general population. Let’s look at this article to get a sense of how they are treated:
Tattoo in prison makes molester a marked man
CARLISLE, Ind. — An inmate serving life in prison for molesting and killing 10-year-old Katie Collman is now the subject of an investigation into how he ended up with the tattoo “Katie’s Revenge” emblazoned across his forehead.
The Indiana Department of Correction placed Anthony Ray Stockelman, 39, in protective custody away from the general inmate population last weekend after authorities discovered the tattoo, said Rich Larsen, a spokesman for the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. It is about 30 miles south of Terre Haute.
An internal investigation is under way to determine how the tattoo, which covers Stockelman’s entire forehead, got there, Larsen said Wednesday. He refused to comment on what Stockelman has said about it or what investigators have learned.
9. “I even think that if they were really smart, the White House would get involved in this case.” I must admit, I was very taken aback by this comment! For him to say that then-President Bush should get involved is something that I would NEVER expect one of the top conservative voices in the country to even fathom, much less actually say to his millions of devoted listeners! He acknowledged that some will laugh at him (which I’m sure they did!), but it was very brave and noble of him to say this. I get the impression that it wasn’t so much that the White House should get involved to save Michael Jackson the celebrity, but to save Michael Jackson the father, the son, the brother, and the American citizen! Just as he said in an earlier episode, if this can happen to him, and can happen to any of us!
10. “I give you permission now to perjure yourself and lie and point fingers and mock and there’s no consequence at all!” Wanna see something that’s totally hilarious? On July 25th, 2011, Diane Dimond published an article on her blog titled “Perjury Should Be Punished – Always”, in response to the alleged lies that were told by Casey Anthony’s mother during her murder trial (specifically, her searches for chloroform on the family computer). How ironic, huh? She witnessed lie after lie after lie told by the Arvizo family, the Neverland 5, and numerous other witnesses during the Michael Jackson trial, and would repeatedly ignore them while giving her “analysis” to viewers on MSNBC, and to readers of the New York Post! Here is a compilation of her reporting:
Here’s a funny quote from her article:
I don’t know about you but my parents instilled in me a sense of honesty that makes me get the shakes at the mere thought of telling a lie after taking a sworn oath. I don’t think I could do it.
Ok, ok, whenever you’re done laughing, let’s look at an objective analysis of her reporting by the author of this EXCELLENT article “Michael Jackson May Be Paying For OJ’s Acquittal”:
Another great huddle for Michael Jackson is the Media. This huddle, by my estimation, is not unrelated to the OJ shadow. And I say this because the American media is generally owned and controlled by white Americans. There’s a strong desire within this demography to convict Jackson and the reporting evidences it. Among others, CNN has sunk to an all-time low. Opinionating has taken the place of reporting. You would see a newscaster and a guest in what is supposed to be an interview. The newscaster carefully lays down his opinions and then bounces them off the guest occasionally. It is not uncommon to see reporters such as Court TV’s Diane Dimond tell open face lies as to what actually happened in court. She has even helped the prosecution by supplying them material she hoped could be used as evidence against Jackson. She has also forecasted Michael Jackson’s death. I’ve heard reporters ask Jackson defenders if they would let their children sleep in Jackson’s bedroom? I’m yet to hear them ask one person if he would open his home to the Arvizo family.
Seems that Dimond has a severe case of amnesia! When it comes to reporting on Michael Jackson, she totally forgets what she claims her parents taught her!
On another note: since that article also highlights the media’s treatment of Kobe Bryant, let’s look at how sympathetic Dimond was to his crazy accuser in this piece she recently did titled “When Rapists Get A Pass” (which insinuates that Kobe Bryant is a rapist):
Remember the 19 year old hotel staffer who charged NBA superstar Kobe Bryant with rape? She had her sanity questioned, her reputation destroyed and her life turned upside down by Bryant’s high paid investigators. Despite her injuries she ultimately refused to testify at trial and accepted an undisclosed sum in a civil suit payoff.
There she goes again! Using the term “payoff” to imply that Kobe bought his freedom! Does that sound familiar! There’s a reason why both the accuser and prosecutor decided not seek a criminal trial! For that reason, you can read this article by Andrew Cohen, one of the few journalists who reported honestly on MJ’s trial!
11. “When you’re joking, and you’re laughing, and you’re plotting when you’re shopping, getting your legs waxed.” This is a direct reference to the laughable testimony of Janet Arvizo, who had to “correct” Mesereau when he asked her, under cross-examination, if she had received a body wax, and she replied that she had only received a leg wax, as if that makes a big difference! Here is the excerpt:
14 Q. All right. Now, during that period of time
15 that you were at Neverland before you left with
16 Jesus, did you go anyplace out of Neverland?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Where did you go?
19 A. Ronald and Dieter said, like I told you
20 about Michael’s positive PR, and they wanted to show
21 that he’s doing things for the mother and the kids.
22 And, you know, so — they had me so wrapped up. I
23 believed everything they said.
24 Q. Miss Arvizo?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Where did you go?
27 A. Okay. I went to, like, a beauty place.
28 And, oh, but get this. 6097
1 Q. Miss Arvizo?
2 A. I’m paying for it.
3 Q. Miss Arvizo?
4 A. That’s right.
5 Q. Where did you go?
6 A. Okay. I went and got my legs waxed.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. And the key thing there —
9 Q. Hold on, hold on.
10 A. — I’ll pay for it, because it was in
11 replacement of my things.
12 Q. All right. I want you only to answer the
13 question that’s asked of you.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. I want you to listen to the question that’s
16 asked. Would you do that?
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. Okay. You went to a beauty salon of some
19 nature; is that right?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have a body wax?
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right. You had your legs waxed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What else?
26 A. That’s it.
I guess we can give her credit for showing some restraint and saving MJ a few bucks by not getting the full body wax!
Even if you don’t necessarily agree with Drudge’s political views, anyone who likes Michael Jackson has to give Drudge his due respect for standing up in the face of intense criticism to tell the truth about the trial. As a talk radio host, he is, for all intents and purposes, an entertainer; he’s not a journalist, and he had no ethical obligation to tell it how it really was in 2005. For that, he should be commended for his bravery! He was definintely the exception, and not the norm, among his conservative talk radio peers.
For an example of what most talk radio shows hosts were like towards MJ, look no further than what Curtis Sliwa said a few weeks after MJ’s memorial:
As you can see, there was no attempt whatsoever to educate his listeners about the facts of the case; he merely wanted to entertain them! It’s disappointing that he said those things, considering the positive effect he has had on crime-ridden, inner city communities with is Guardian Angels group.
Based on these 4 radio shows (and any others that I may obtain in the future), it’s easy to see why I said that, when it comes to Michael Jackson, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are POLES APART!!!