Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 1 of 3
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
The February 27th, 2005 episode starts at the beginning, and the March 6, 2005 episode begins at 5:34:
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! (Keep in mind, that the vast majority of the public, REGARDLESS of their political views, thought that Jackson was guilty and would be convicted, due in large part to the LIBERAL media’s slanted coverage. By no means am I implying here that all conservatives thought Jackson was guilty, or that only conservatives thought he was guilty.)
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!
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 and Part 3 of this series, I will analyze the final two Matt Drudge shows that I currently have in my possession. I am also trying to get any additional episodes, including the post-acquittal episode!