Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 2 of 3
Here is Stacy Brown’s direct examination by Gordon Auchincloss, and it once again focused almost exclusively on Bob Jones’ recollection (or lack thereof) of seeing Michael Jackson lick Jordan Chandler’s head. This just shows how desperate the prosecution was, and that they had to “grasp for straws” in order to find something to use in order to prejudice the jury against MJ.
Auchincloss begins his direct examination by asking Brown about his background and his relationship to the Jackson family. Notice how he mentioned writing a book with Rebbie:
26 DIRECT EXAMINATION
27 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
28 Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown. 5564
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. What is your occupation, sir?
3 A. I’m — currently I’m an analyst for MS-NBC
4 and I’m also an author.
5 Q. All right. As an author, have you had
6 occasion to collaborate with writers in the creation
7 of books?
8 A. Oh, yes, several.
9 Q. Can you give me an example?
10 A. Well, in 2002, published by Simon &
11 Schuster, I co-authored the book Blind Faith, a
12 biography of Stevie Wonder and his mom, Lula
14 Q. Have you worked in the past to —
15 collaborated in the past with any members of the
16 family of Michael Jackson in the creation of books?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. Who would that be?
19 A. That would be his older sister, Rebbie
20 Jackson, and his brother Jermaine Jackson.
21 Q. And when I say “Mr. Jackson,” is he the man
22 seated to my right with the long black hair?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were those — was there ever any attempt to
25 publish those two books that you just described?
26 A. The latter two, Rebbie and Jermaine?
27 Q. Yes.
28 A. That I — there was — 5565
1 Q. Were they published?
2 A. No, they was not published.
3 Q. Do you know why not?
4 A. Well, the last one with —
5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Were those books,
9 either of them, pulled from the publisher by you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Why?
12 A. At the direction of —
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: May I ask foundation or
17 relevance, Your Honor?
18 THE COURT: The relevance.
19 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
Next, Brown is asked about whose idea it was to write their book about Michael Jackson, and he confirms that it was Jones’ idea to write the book, beginning in January 2004, five months before he was fired. Later on, we’ll learn about the true motivations that Jones had for wanting to write the book:
8 Q. Who approached whom concerning the writing
9 of this book?
10 A. Last January during the arraignment here,
11 Bob Jones approached me — we were both standing
12 outside that day, and he approached me about writing
13 that book.
14 Q. And you’ve worked together to prepare a
16 A. Yeah, we did. And we didn’t — you know, I
17 didn’t initially agree to write the book.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. There was some concerns that I had. I
20 didn’t want to —
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.
22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That’s fine.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So did you originally
25 want to write this book?
26 A. Not originally, no.
27 Q. Why not?
28 A. Well, I knew — 5567
1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; calls
2 for speculation.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It goes to — offered as
6 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Tell me about the
8 collaboration process with Mr. Jones. How has this
9 book come together?
10 A. Well, I interviewed Bob, another writer also
11 interviewed Bob as well, about his experience, not
12 only with Michael. We have to remember Bob worked
13 with a lot of people including Lionel Ritchie, Rick
14 James, Barry Gordy, the Jacksons as a family.
15 Q. Uh-huh.
16 A. So Michael was — and Bob’s mind was seen as
17 just a small part of his story, but obviously the
18 publisher wanted more about Michael because he is
Auchincloss then asks Brown about how he communicates with Jones as they write their book, and this is important because their method of communication is at the heart of the prosecution’s motivation on why they were both subpoenaed:
17 Q. In working with Mr. Jones, how did you
18 communicate with one another?
19 A. We spoke a lot over the phone. We met in
20 person. And a lot of times, because of the
21 distance, we e-mailed each other.
22 Q. And so how would it work in terms of his
23 working with you?
24 A. What would happen is he would send me an
25 e-mail of a lot of his notes that he had kept over
26 the years. We would talk about them, and then I’d
27 start writing. And I would send him what I write,
28 and he would have to approve it, and then he would 5569
1 send it back with any type of changes that needed to
2 be made, and the changes would be — then be made.
So here is where the endless harassment over the “head licking” incident starts!
3 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: If I may approach, Your
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Jones — or Mr.
7 Brown, I show you People’s Exhibit 803. Could you
8 identify those two passages for me?
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection to the extent it
10 calls for hearsay.
11 THE COURT: Overruled. I’ll allow him to
12 identify them.
13 THE WITNESS: By “identify,” read them?
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No, just identify them.
15 Are those two passages that came from the book that
16 you’re working on with Mr. Jones?
17 A. That’s correct, yes.
18 Q. And while I’m up here, I’m going to show you
19 People’s Exhibit 804. Can you identify that for me?
20 A. An e-mail Bob Jones sent to me.
21 Q. You personally received that from Mr. Jones?
22 A. That’s correct.
23 Q. And an e-mail —
24 A. That’s correct. Another e-mail.
25 Q. That’s Exhibit 805. That’s one he sent you
26 as well?
27 A. That’s correct.
28 Q. Now, for the record, are these complete 5570
1 e-mails or did they have some material?
2 A. Oh, they had a lot of material.
3 Q. But this is just a portion of them?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. All right. Did Bob Jones, during your
6 collaboration with him in the writing of this book,
7 tell you about an incident in which he observed the
8 defendant, Michael Jackson, lick a boy by the name
9 of Jordie Chandler on the head?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; and
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered under 1236.
13 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
14 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
15 THE COURT: Just answer that “yes” or “no.”
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Yes, he did.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What did he tell you?
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, he described an
22 incident, they were going to the World Music Awards
23 in Monaco, I believe it was. And he talked about
24 how strange it was, because Jordie had a head full
25 of hair, and he said, “I thought maybe it would be
26 more” — you know, “It would be understandable if he
27 had a bald head.” But he just couldn’t understand
28 the licking of the head when he had a head full of 5571
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: He said he saw Michael
3 Jackson lick Jordie’s head?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Those two passages that I showed you in
6 Exhibit 803, did you ever share that manuscript that
7 contained those passages with Mr. Jones?
8 A. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Bob had to approve
9 everything that went to the publisher.
10 Q. So everything that went to the publisher was
11 approved by Mr. Jones?
12 A. That’s correct.
13 Q. And did this — did those two passages that
14 I just showed you go to the publisher?
15 A. Oh, yeah.
16 Q. Did you discuss this issue of the licking
17 incident on more than one occasion?
18 A. Oh, yes, we did. Do you want me to —
19 Q. Go ahead.
20 A. Yeah, we did. Beginning in, I would say,
21 maybe August or September, he and I discussed it.
22 And we discussed it with another writer, Dennis
23 love, and also our agent and the publisher.
Auchincloss then begins to question Brown about his knowledge of the current facts of the Arvizo case:
13 Q. All right. This e-mail that I showed you,
14 804 – I’ll show it to you again just so you’re
15 familiar with what I’m talking about – references
16 that, “The licking is going to be important because
17 he did it in this case, too.”
18 Can you tell me, what was the context of
19 that remark?
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
21 foundation; and calls for hearsay.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: What did you understand
24 he was referring to when he said, “this case, too”?
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation;
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 Excuse me. Sustained. 5573
1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Did you stay abreast of
2 the information in the media during the writing of
3 this book?
4 A. Yeah, I had to. It’s my job.
5 Q. Okay. Did you — did you check the Internet
6 sources of news media?
7 A. Yeah. I look at different newspapers and
8 news outlets throughout the country, and their take
9 on what’s going on as well.
10 Q. And on October 30th, 2004, had you ever
11 heard of any kind of licking that had gone on in the
12 case of People v. Michael Jackson that’s presently
13 before the Court?
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
15 foundation; hearsay.
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: In the media outlets.
17 MR. MESEREAU: Improper hearsay.
18 THE COURT: I guess I’m not sure where you’re
19 going with what his knowledge is of this case, how
20 that relates to what Mr. Jones has said.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Whether it had been
22 reported in the media from another source – he says
23 he kept abreast of all the media sources – or
24 whether this was the first time he’d heard it.
25 THE COURT: All right. If you’ll rephrase
26 the question to relate to the relevance that you’re
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. 5574
1 Q. My question is this, Mr. Brown: When Mr.
2 Jones wrote you this e-mail on October 30th, were
3 you aware at that time that there was an allegation
4 of licking in the case involving Gavin Arvizo and
5 Mr. Jackson?
6 A. I can’t say that –
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
8 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
9 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Go ahead.
10 A. I can’t say that I was, because I — when
11 Bob told me, it was the first that I’d heard of the
12 incident. He had actually heard it first as it
13 pertains to this case, and that’s when — that
14 prompted him to share with me that it was going to
15 be important.
16 Q. Now, he says in that e-mail, “The licking is
17 going to be important because he did it in this
18 case, too.” Was that the first time you heard of
19 the connection between the two —
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. — cases?
22 Had he talked to you about the licking
23 before that?
24 A. We had started discussing —
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
26 foundation; hearsay.
27 THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection.
28 But the question is simply whether or not he 5575
1 discussed this with you before that e-mail.
2 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: So that’s a “yes” or
4 A. That particular e-mail?
5 Q. Yeah, before that e-mail.
6 A. The e-mail, no. The incident, yeah.
7 Q. Okay, the incident. He discussed it before
8 that e-mail?
9 A. Yeah.
Auchincloss then asks Brown if Jones denied his recollections of the head licking incident, and afterward Judge Melville calls for a break in court:
16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Was there a period of
17 time when Mr. Jones all of a sudden began to have a
18 loss of recollection or something of that nature
19 regarding this licking incident?
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; calls
21 for speculation.
22 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection as the
23 question is too broad.
24 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. At some time
25 during your collaboration with Mr. Jones, did he
26 ever try to deny his recollections about this
27 licking incident?
28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; calls 5576
1 for speculation; relevance; foundation.
2 THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection. The
3 question should be read back to the witness.
4 (Record read.)
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah. He had fuzzy
6 recollections about it, yes.
7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Was there —
8 THE COURT: Just a moment. We’re going to
9 take our break.
10 (Recess taken.)
When the court returned from break, Auchincloss asked a few more irrelevant questions about Jones’ recollection of the head licking incident, and then ended his direct examination.
1 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 Q. Mr. Brown, where we left off, I was asking
4 you about this period of time when Mr. Jones started
5 to have some failure of recollection on the issue of
6 head licking.
7 When did that — do you recall when that
8 began or when that started?
9 A. It’s been about a month or so now.
10 Q. Before that time, how many times had you
11 been involved in a conversation where Mr. Jones
12 talked about the head-licking incident?
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 THE WITNESS: I can’t tell you exact number
16 of times, but it was more than a couple.
17 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. And how would
18 you describe this change in his recollection, if you
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; vague.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I can be more specific.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Relevance.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question goes to,
24 was it an abrupt change, or was it something that
25 occurred over a period of time, or something in
27 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Vague; relevance;
28 foundation. 5582
1 THE COURT: Overruled.
2 You may answer.
3 THE WITNESS: I would say it was more abrupt
4 than anything else.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Mr. Brown. I
6 have no further questions.
7 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
8 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.
Mesereau begins his cross-examination, and as usual he hits the ground running! He begins by asking Brown about Jones’ real motivations for writing the book:
11 BY MR. MESEREAU:
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. How long have you known Bob Jones?
15 A. The year Princess Diana died. I think it
16 was ‘97.
17 Q. Okay. And approximately when did he tell
18 you he intended to write a book?
19 A. It was about January, a few months before he
20 was terminated.
21 Q. And you’ve been interviewed by the sheriffs
22 in this case, right?
23 A. That’s correct.
24 Q. And you told the sheriffs that Bob Jones
25 told you he’s broke and he needs to make some money,
27 A. That’s what —
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay. 5583
1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you gone through
3 different drafts with Mr. Jones?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. On the issue of head licking, did Mr. Jones
6 tell you at one point he had to make money on this
7 book because he had financial problems?
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 You may answer.
12 THE WITNESS: He didn’t — Mr. Mesereau, he
13 didn’t tell me that in relation to the head licking.
14 That never came up in discussions of money.
15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But he told you he’s broke
16 and has to get paid for this book, correct?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Hearsay;
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 You may answer.
21 THE WITNESS: When we first started the book,
22 he said he needs the money. He was just fired.
23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And he said he was broke,
25 A. Yes. That’s correct.
26 Q. You told the police you said he was broke,
28 A. That’s correct. 5584
1 Q. Okay. Now, how did — how did the — let me
2 rephrase that.
3 Obviously at some point you met with Bob
4 Jones about writing a book, correct?
5 A. That’s correct.
6 Q. And where did you meet with him?
7 A. Well, as I said earlier, he first approached
8 me here at the court, back during the arraignment.
9 Q. And did he tell you then he wanted to write
11 A. That’s correct.
12 Q. And that’s before he —
13 A. That’s before his termination.
14 Q. Okay. And how long before his termination
15 was that, do you think?
16 A. Well, it was January, so — the termination
17 was in June. So four, five months.
18 Q. And did he tell you he was doing it
20 A. Well, he didn’t say secretly, but he said —
21 obviously any process with a book, you don’t want
22 everyone to know this is what you are doing.
23 I did, however, myself, tell members of the
24 family, to get their thoughts on it, because that
25 was my concern, what their thoughts may be with me
26 doing a book with Bob Jones with — chiefly it had
27 to be about Michael Jackson.
So now there shouldn’t be any more misconceptions of when Bob Jones decided to write the book, and what his true motivations were! He decided to write it in January 2004 because he needed the money, and as a result, he was fired by Randy Jackson in June 2004!
Mesereau then begins to question Brown about his interviews with police, and Jones’ statement about the head licking incident. Notice how Brown makes the utterly ridiculous statement that he and Jones never discussed money, and money isn’t a big deal to him! If that was true, then why did they sensationalize the book with the head licking incident, and other lies? Why did they give in to the publisher’s demand and write exclusively about MJ, when Jones has worked with many other celebrities as well (and initially wanted to write about them!) :
28 Q. Okay. Now, did Mr. Jones tell you he was 5585
1 talking to anyone from the sheriff’s department?
2 A. Not at that time, no.
3 Q. When did you first learn that he had spoken
4 to anyone from the sheriff’s department?
5 A. I believe they first contacted him in
6 December of last year.
7 Q. And based on the prosecutor’s questions to
8 you, you must have learned at some point that Bob
9 Jones was saying he couldn’t really remember seeing
10 any head licking, right?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
12 THE COURT: I’m sorry, I can’t read the —
13 THE REPORTER: “Learned” instead of
15 THE COURT: All right. The objection is
17 You may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat it, sir?
19 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll have it read back. May
20 it be read back, Your Honor?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 (Record read.)
23 THE WITNESS: Oh, I wouldn’t say it was
24 based on the prosecutor’s — that. I think it was
25 simply when I spoke with him, he got a little
26 nervous about that particular vein. I think he
27 realized that it was going to become a part of this
28 — 5586
1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, did you and Mr.
2 Jones discuss the fact that the Arvizos went to
3 Larry Feldman, the same lawyer who represented the
5 A. The —
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Relevance;
7 beyond the scope; and argumentative.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Has the name Larry Feldman
10 come up in the book you’re writing?
11 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: Not by name, but certainly by
15 title and by inference. Bob did say, based on his
16 notes back in —
17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, just — you just
18 have to answer the question, okay? I’ll get into
19 that —
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. — okay?
22 Does the book concern this case in any
24 A. I would think in some respects.
25 Q. And is it your plan to market the book while
26 this trial is going on?
27 A. Well, it all depends on when it’s finished.
28 Q. Has he ever talked to you about when he 5587
1 plans to complete the book?
2 A. Well, I have a lot of say in that, so we’ve
3 talked about that, and we’ve always said we don’t
4 want it to be a rush job, and a lot of people want
5 it to be a rush job. The publisher wants it to be a
6 rush job.
7 Q. The publisher wants it to be a rough job —
8 A. Rush job.
9 Q. — rush job because you can sell it better
10 while the trial is going on, right?
11 A. Obviously, if it comes out now, it would
12 probably pique some interest because it’s Bob Jones,
13 who, you know, has worked for Michael for so long,
14 and it’s Michael.
15 Q. Now, have you discussed the amount of money
16 he might make on the book?
17 A. No, you know, we — we’ve been made promises
18 in the past. We don’t listen to that. We don’t
19 even speculate on what can be made.
20 Personally, I just enjoy writing, so, you
21 know, the money aspect — I think I do pretty well.
22 It’s not a big deal to me.
Mesereau then questions Brown about a material inconsistency that he stated to police in December 2004, during an interview:
23 Q. Do you remember you were interviewed by a
24 Santa Barbara sheriff on December 7th, 2004?
25 A. Around about, yeah.
26 Q. And you were approached by Sergeant Robel,
28 A. Uh-huh. Yes, that’s correct. I’m sorry. 5588
1 Q. And the purpose of the interview was to talk
2 to you about this alleged head-licking event, right?
3 A. I’m not sure if that was the purpose of the
4 interview. We talked about various things back in
5 December, but I’m not sure that was the purpose of
7 Q. And do you remember Sergeant Robel wanted to
8 know why you had said that Mr. Jones told you he saw
9 Michael Jackson kiss Jordie, not lick his head?
10 A. Well, that’s not exactly what — that I
11 remember Sergeant Robel putting to me. There was a
12 question another investigator had had about whether
13 I said he — Bob said he licked or kissed him, and
14 he wanted me to clarify that.
15 Q. And you had told the investigator that based
16 on your discussions with Bob Jones, he had said that
17 Michael Jackson kissed Jordie one time, didn’t lick
18 his head, right?
19 A. No, I didn’t say that.
20 Q. Do you remember you apologized?
21 A. No, no. What happened — I apologized if it
22 was confused. But what happened was, I think the
23 investigator had misunderstood and that’s what he
24 was calling to clarify. That’s one of the reasons
25 why he called, to clarify exactly what I said. He
26 said he didn’t remember if I said “licking” or
28 Q. Let me ask you if this is correct. 5589
1 A. Sure.
2 Q. “Brown apologized for the mistake. Said he
3 had not realized that he told me he was kissing as
4 opposed to licking.” Does that sound accurate to
6 A. It’s probably accurate. But again, as I’m
7 explaining to you, I explained to Sergeant Robel
8 when he asked the question, when he asked me about
9 that, I had told the other investigator, I think it
10 was Zelis, I’m — I’m not sure, but I think it was
11 Paul Zelis, the investigator’s name, and I think he
12 was the one who had actually made the mistake or —
13 I won’t even say “mistake.” He wanted to clarify,
14 is that what I said.
15 Q. Why did you apologize to him?
16 A. Well, I apologized for being polite. I
17 mean, it’s just a polite thing to do, you know. If
18 I was wrong, I have no problems apologizing.
19 Q. Now, you’re aware that Mr. Jones has
20 indicated he doesn’t remember head licking and has
21 said he’d be lying to say that he did. Are you
22 aware of that?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; misstates the
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
He claimed that money wasn’t a concern for him, but look at how he openly bragged about his huge payday on Twitter! I’ll include many more tweets from Brown in Part 3 of this series.
Mesereau ends his cross-examination here by asking about how much right of approval Bob Jones has over the final manuscript, whether they will be paid more money if the book is more sensational, and who is actually getting paid for the book.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Jones has final
10 approval over what’s in that book, doesn’t he?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. Would you agree that the more sensational
13 the book, the better the chance of making money on
15 A. Well, obviously. I mean, we’ve been told
16 things that nothing surprises them about Michael
17 Jackson, so — but it’s not our intentions to write
18 a book of scandal, if that’s what you’re inferring.
19 It’s certainly not mine, and I have to write it.
20 And I have people in his family who I happen to love
21 very much who I’m not going to disappoint.
22 Q. They’re not getting any money from the book,
23 are they?
24 A. The family?
25 Q. Yes.
26 A. Why should they?
27 Q. They’re not getting any money from the book,
28 are they? 5591
1 A. I’m sorry to respond in that way. No.
2 Q. The one who is going to make money is Bob
3 Jones, who’s broke, right?
4 A. We both will.
5 Q. You’re aware that Bob Jones was very upset
6 when he was terminated, aren’t you?
7 A. You know what? To be honest with you, he
8 wasn’t upset that he was terminated. He was upset
9 in which the way Randy terminated him.
10 Q. I’m not sure what that means.
11 A. Well, Bob had —
12 Q. Referring to Randy Jackson, right?
13 A. Randy Jackson, I’m sorry.
14 Bob had felt he’d been loyal to Michael for
15 basically half of Michael’s life, or most of
16 Michael’s life, I should say. And to get fired by a
17 messenger, you know, I felt bad, too. In fact, I
18 had spoke to someone in Michael’s family about that.
19 I said, “That’s horrible.”
20 But he was just upset in the method. He
21 knew that eventually his time was going to be up
22 just like everyone else’s.
23 Q. In the draft that you and Mr. Jones have
24 written, Mr. Jones says on at least two occasions
25 that he’s never seen Michael Jackson act
26 inappropriately with children, right?
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.
28 THE COURT: Overruled. 5592
1 You may answer.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, if it was the exact —
3 well, I don’t remember the exact wording, but to say
4 that he saw him molest anybody, no, it does not say
5 he saw him molest anybody.
6 MR. MESEREAU: I have no further questions,
7 Your Honor.
Auchincloss decided to further question Brown under redirect examination, and he focused on the time period in which Jones stopped complaining about his finances:
9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
11 Q. Mr. Jones (sic), I previously showed you
12 People’s Exhibit 803. Did Mr. Jones approve those
13 two passages?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Ask to move 803 into
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 MR. MESEREAU: Relevance.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered as a prior
22 inconsistent statement as to the first passage and a
23 prior consistent statement as to the second.
24 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
25 THE COURT: The ruling remains the same.
26 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Ask at this
27 time to admit the two e-mails, Your Honor, Exhibits
28 804 and 805, into evidence at this time. 5593
1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;
2 foundation; authenticity; relevance.
3 THE COURT: I’ll take that up later.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay.
5 Q. Mr. Brown, you said that Mr. Jones was
6 complaining about his finances on cross-examination.
7 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
8 Q. Is this a frequent complaint?
9 A. Yeah, he’s — well, yeah, he’s made a few
10 complaints about that.
11 Q. Was there a time when he stopped complaining
12 about his finances during this period of
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was what — when — when he stopped
16 complaining about finances, tell me, was there any
17 relationship in time to that point and the time in
18 which he started to have this failure of
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance; vague;
22 THE COURT: I’ll sustain vague.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Can you tell me
24 approximately when in time Mr. Jones stopped
25 complaining about his finances?
26 A. It’s been about a month or so.
27 Q. And when in time did he start to have his
28 failure of recollection? 5594
1 A. About a month or so.
2 Q. Did they — did both of those coincide in
4 A. I would say so, yes.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no
6 further questions.
Mesereau quickly recross examined Brown in order to have him clarify his previous statement to Auchincloss. He gets Brown to admit that Jones was broke, and needed to sensationalize his story to get a book deal, he said there was head licking, but when he wasn’t broke anymore, he couldn’t “recall” any head licking! This is absolutely typical of the many people who only “remembered” seeing inappropriate behavior when there was a financial benefit to them!
9 BY MR. MESEREAU:
10 Q. Mr. Brown, what I think the prosecutor just
11 elicited is the following: When he was broke, he
12 said there was licking. And when he didn’t have
13 financial problems, he said there wasn’t any, right?
14 A. Well, if that’s how you —
15 Q. Right?
16 A. — break it down, yeah, I guess.
17 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.
That ends the testimony of Stacy Brown. Let’s get into his background, and discuss the “other” book about MJ that he intended to write, before he was busted for plagiarism!
In August 2005, jurors Eleanor Cooke and Ray Hultman announced that they were each going to write books about how they thought that MJ was truly guilty, and that they were “bullied” into acquitting him. They made the interview rounds promoting their upcoming books, and in the process they made a mockery of themselves and the justice system, and Mesereau was forced to go into damage control mode:
In the video below, Stacy Brown denied having anything to do with the helping them write their books, beginning at 4:03:
However, in September 2005, Ray Hultman sued the book publisher who offered them their book deal! He claimed that he was taken advantage of due to his inexepereince! And in addition to suing the book publisher, he also sued Stacy Brown!
Jackson juror sues to get out of book deal
A Michael Jackson juror who last month announced a book deal and said he believed the pop star was guilty of child molestation has filed a lawsuit to break his publishing contract.
Ray Hultman and his wife, Darlene Hultman, filed the lawsuit in Superior Court in Santa Maria on Wednesday, claiming they were novices suckered into signing a book pact with publisher Larry Garrison, owner of the Lake Sherwood-based SilverCreek Entertainment.
“Plaintiff/s reliance on Garrison/s representations was justified in light of their aforementioned simplicity, naiveté, overly trusting natures, lack of sophistication and inexperience, and Garrison/s motivational skills and ability to /sell/ and promote himself and/or his business ventures,” according to the suit.
Hultman, 62, of Santa Maria wants out of his contract and is seeking unspecified damages for mental and emotional stress. Also named in the suit is Hultman/s agent, Bill Gladstone of Cardiff by the Sea, and Los Angeles author Stacy Brown.
No court date has yet been scheduled for the lawsuit.
Santa Barbara lawyer James Nichols Jr., Hultman/s attorney, wrote in the lawsuit that his client should be released from the contract because California law barred him from capitalizing on his jury service until 90 days after the verdict.
Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville informed jurors about the law on June 13, after the panel acquitted Jackson on child-molestation, conspiracy and alcohol charges. The 90-day period is set to expire Sunday.
Attached to the lawsuit are two hand-written contracts signed by Hultman, his wife and Garrison. In the first contract, signed June 28, the Hultmans granted Garrison rights to Hultman/s story in exchange for half of all proceeds for any book or movie deals.
“Any book and or film will portray him and our family in a positive manner,” the contract reads.
The contract also mentions that both parties would pay Brown to help write the book, to be called “The Deliberator.”
Hultman claims he was shocked when media reports surfaced Aug. 19 that his book proposal contained plagiarized material from a Vanity Fair magazine article. In the lawsuit, Hultman blames Brown for allegedly plagiarizing the documents, and alleges that his reputation and deal was damaged by the alleged act.
“(Hultman) was caused to expend substantial time in writing portions of a book proposal which turned out to be valueless give the aforementioned plagiary; suffered extreme mental and emotional distress and damage to his reputation after being publicly accused of plagiarism and therefore lack of integrity, and suffered a substantial diminution, if not a complete loss of the value of his literary and film rights arising out of his service as a juror in the Jackson trial.”
Brown said on Thursday that he was surprised by the lawsuit, which he considered “laughable.” He denies the plagiarism allegations, and said he never spoke with Hultman or agreed to co-author his book.
“I think this is another attempt for Ray to keep himself in the media,” Brown said. “No one is interested in his book. He was badly misguided. He/d be better off riding into the sunset and getting on with his life.”
Hultman/s prospects of a solo book appeared to have waned by Aug. 8, when he signed another contract with Garrison. That document refers to a collaboration with 81-year-old Ellie Cook, another Santa Maria juror who acquitted Jackson, then professed her belief that the singer was guilty.
“If necessary, it will be acceptable for you to negotiate the publication of one book combining the experiences of Ellie Cook and Ray Hultman as jurors on the Michael Jackson trial,” the contract reads.
Hultman/s stake was diminished in the new contract. He and his wife were now to receive 25 percent, Ellie Cook and her granddaughter Tracy Montgomery were to receive 25 percent and Garrison was to receive 50 percent.
Garrison declined to comment for this story, saying he had not had an opportunity to review the lawsuit. Gladstone was traveling out of the country and did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Hultman declined to comment for this story, as did his attorney.
Quintin Cushner can be reached at 739-2217 firstname.lastname@example.org.
September 9, 2005
Although Brown denied having anything to do with the book, who do you believe? Based on Brown’s track record of ghostwriting books and plagiarizing other people’s work (for example, he recycled some of Bob Jones’ previous interviews for “Man Behind The Mask”), I would take Hultman’s word over Brown’s any day of the week!
Here is some more info on their book deals:
In 2005 Aphrodite Jones was one of only two authors granted access to every day of the Michael Jackson trial. With seven New York Times bestsellers under her belt, her book looked set to fly off of shelves when it hit stores. But when Jones came to write her book she hit wall after her wall.
As one of the only journalists willing to admit that Jackson’s 2005 trial had proven his innocence once and for all, Jones found that publishing houses were unwilling to give her a deal. Thomas Mesereau, Jackson’s defense lawyer, encountered the same problem. After the trial almost every major publishing house in the US approached him with lucrative book deals. When he maintained that Jackson was truly innocent and he wouldn’t write anything to the contrary, every publishing house retracted its offer.
Jurors were offered book deals too. Two jurors claimed after the trial that they really thought Jackson was guilty, but only after they had signed six figure book deals. Other jurors claimed that they had been offered identical deals by the same publishing companies – but only if they too would change their opinion from innocent to guilty, casting enormous doubt over the sincerity of both rogue jurors’ u-turns.
One juror, Ray Hultman, lost his publishing deal after it was revealed that his manuscript included portions plagiarised from an inaccurate Vanity Fair article. These included allegations that the former juror couldn’t possibly verify, such as claims that Jackson had a detachable nose. The book was co-written by Stacy Brown, a serial Jackson detractor who also co-wrote a book about the star with Bob Jones, Jackson’s former aide. Jones was forced to admit on the stand in 2005 that portions of his book ‘The Man Behind The Mask’ had been fabricated by Brown in order to boost sales.
Hultman’s crediblity was further damaged when it was revealed that after the verdict he had commented to one reporter, “The evidence just wasn’t there. We couldn’t have gone any other way.” A strange comment from a man who would later insist that Jackson had been guilty. The second juror, Eleanor Cook, also never published her book. Cook’s granddaughter caused controversy when she announced during jury deliberations that the juror had already signed a book deal – and had agreed to it in principle before the trial had even begun.
Ghostwriter Ernie Cariwel admitted on June 7th 2005 – five days before the verdict was reached in Jackson’s trial – that he had already begun writing the book despite never having spoken to Cook. Fellow jurors slammed the pair two months after the verdict, calling them ‘traitors’ and claiming that their allegations were ‘ridiculous’.
The Vanity Fair article that Brown plagiarized is from their April 2003 issue, titled “Losing His Grip”, written by the notorious Maureen Orth. Here are a few excerpts that lie about MJ’s nose:
Just the week before, Jackson had testified in a civil suit in a court in Santa Maria, California, near Neverland. He was monosyllabic, dazed, and disheveled, and the tip of his nose seemed to be missing, owing to exaggerated amounts of plastic surgery.
Up close, Jackson’s appearance is amazing. He wears a black pageboy wig, and his face is caked with white makeup, which conceals a prosthesis that serves as the tip of his nose. One person who has seen him without the device says he resembles a mummy with two nostril holes. He uses red lipstick and perfume, pencils and dyes his eyebrows, and has black eyeliner that looks as if it’s tattooed on. He also appears to have white makeup on his hands, and his clothes, right down to the crests on his ties, suggest a wealthy private-school boy or a young member of European royalty.
Hultman settled his lawsuit in the fall of 2005, and no money changed hands. Notice how he was pressured into sensationalizing his story to sell more books!
No swift riches for jurors turned would-be authors
Almost a year after they were selected to serve on the high-profile Michael Jackson child-molestation trial, none of the three jurors who announced plans to write books on the case has a deal.
Juror Raymond Hultman is now without representation after suing to break a contract signed with two publishing figures. The lawsuit settled last year.
Hultman and his wife, Darlene Hultman, had filed suit Sept. 8 in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, claiming they were novices suckered into signing a book pact with Larry Garrison, owner of the Lake Sherwood-based SilverCreek Entertainment.
No money changed hands in the settlement, Hultman said, although he was freed from any obligation to either
Garrison or agent Bill Gladstone of Waterside Productions.
“It was kind of a bad experience for me,” said Hultman, who claimed he was pressured to sensationalize his story. “If there is a book eventually, it will be on my terms.”
The 62-year-old plans examiner with the Santa Barbara County Building and Safety Division, agreed to write a book following the June 13 acquittal of Jackson on child-molestation, conspiracy and alcohol-related charges.
Hultman, who later raised eyebrows when he claimed Jackson probably was guilty, was to collaborate on a book with another juror in the case, Eleanor Cook of Santa Maria. Cook, a 79-year-old retiree, has also said she believes Jackson was guilty.
Cook is still set to write “Free as a Bird, Guilty as Sin: The True Story of the Michael Jackson Trial,” provided a deal is made, according to agent Gladstone.
Gladstone, who has offices in Cardiff-by-the-Sea, said shopping the book has been difficult.
When we went out (to sell it), we thought it was a pretty big deal,” Gladstone said. “But it/s not a big deal. It/s not going to a major house with a major advance. Now we/re starting with minor publishers … We have talked about repositioning the book as an indictment of the American justice system.”
Gladstone said he placed the chances of the book ever selling at “less than 50-50.”
Cook could not be reached for comment.
The other juror who pursued a book deal after the Jackson trial was foreman Paul Rodriguez, 63. A retiree who signed with New York book agent Vigliano and Associates, Rodriguez also apparently has no book pending.
A spokeswoman at Vigliano and Associates refused to comment on the prospects of a deal. Rodriguez could not be reached for comment.
The only book so far published on the trial is Diane Dimond’s “Be Care Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case.”
The former Court TV anchor, who said her book has sold about 10,000 copies for publisher Simon & Schuster since it was released in November, expressed concern that anyone would want to profit from jury service.
I don/t think it does anybody any good to have potential jurors with dollar signs and a big book deal in their minds during jury selection,” she said.
Quintin Cushner can be reached at 739-2217 email@example.com.
January 22, 2006
On a more positive note, it seems that Ray Hultman had a change of heart about MJ in the years after the trial, and it proves that we’re all human, and can change for the better!
Here is what Hultman had to say about MJ after he died!
Attorney, Jurors React to Michael Jackson’s Death
SANTA YNEZ VALLEY – Michael Jackson’s court trials in Santa Maria left an enduring image for many in the community, fans and critics alike.
Those who were with the pop star during his civil and criminal trials say they hope his legal troubles don’t define his legacy.
“I don’t think that the legal problems that he had or the legal cases should define him”, says Jackson defense attorney Bob Sanger.
Sanger successfully defended Jackson during the pop star’s six month civil trial and the four month criminal trial, both in Santa Maria court.
“He was exonerated overwhelmingly by the jury, Sanger says, “but it’s still been sort of a defining event or series of events.”
“We’ve lost a great artist as everybody knows” says horse woman Susan Derr Drake, one of the 12 jurors that found Jackson not guilty in his 2005 molestation trial.
“I’m hoping they will remember him for the gifts he gave the planet”, Derr Drake says, “his music his generosity to many organizations. His capacity to love was huge and I hope that is what he leaves behind.”
Fellow Jackson juror Ray Hultman issued this statement on the pop star’s death:
“I offer my sympathies to Michael Jackson’s family and hope God will give them strength during this time. Michael Jackson was undeniably a great entertainer and it’s sad that much of his talents and energy in later life was consumed by having to defend some poor personal choices.”
Bob Sanger says he’ll remember Michael Jackson as a kind, gentle and humble man who used his celebrity to help people, especially sick and disadvantaged children and their families.
“He was very shy when he wasn’t on the stage”, Sanger says, “but he really wanted to help children and I know that leads to all sorts of cynical remarks but he did a lot for children around the world.”
Your Central Coast News attempted to contact members of the prosecution team in Jackson’s molestation trial to get their reaction to his sudden death.
The official response from the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office was no comment.
So now you have an idea of Brown’s credibility (or lack thereof), and when you see the sensationalistic lies that he wrote about MJ in “Man Behind The Mask”, it won’t surprise you one bit! On a final note, here is a post I did a few months ago about the connections between Brown, Diane Dimond, Ron Zonen, and so many others who were enemies of MJ! They are all LITERALLY one big happy family! The photo below says it all!