Michael Jackson's former wife Debbie Rowe shocked prosecution lawyers when she tearfully testified yesterday that she was not pressurized into appearing in a television documentary praising her ex husband - and she asserted that her answers were not scripted by Jackson or his aides. Rowe, who was married to the Thriller singer for three years from 1996 to 1999, and had children Prince Michael and Paris with him, was expected to bolster the prosecution's argument that Jackson forced the family of the boy accusing Jackson into appearing in a counter documentary following British journalist Martin Bashir's damaging 2003 expose Living With Michael Jackson. Rowe told the court, "I didn't want anyone to be able to come back to me and say my interview was rehearsed. As Mr. Jackson knows, no one can tell me what to say." She said that she was offered a list of the questions so she could prepare, but she chose not to read them. She recalled, "It was a cold interview and I wanted to keep it that way." Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen asked Rowe what she expected in return for giving the video interview and the visibly crying witness replied, "To be reunited with the children and be reacquainted with their dad." In his opening statement on February 28, chief prosecutor Tom Sneddon told the jury, "Debbie Rowe will tell you her interview also was completely scripted. They scripted that interview just like they scripted the (accuser's mother's) interview." But the prosecution's line of attack has faltered in the face of Rowe's reversed testimony - and she remained adamant that neither Jackson or his aides tried to coerce her into giving scripted answers. Rowe will take the stand again today. Jackson has pleaded not guilty to 10 felony charges of child molestation, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiracy involving allegations of child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. The trial continues.
quote:
Michael Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe has revealed she ignored a script when she appeared in a 2003 image-improvement video because she wanted her answers to questions about her former husband to be honest and clear. Rowe took to the stand in court in Santa Maria, California, again yesterday morning, after spending 45 minutes there at the end of Wednesday's hearing. And, after the defense team moved to have her testimony struck from the record - a motion that was denied - she continued to pour praise on her ex, insisting that she wanted to be closer to him and their two children. Tearful Rowe even glared at Jackson at one point as she told the court she still considers herself a friend of the King of Pop, and said, "If he'd just talk to me." Rowe then admitted she had been given a list of 105 scripted questions to help her prepare for her part in the 2003 rebuttal video, which was released to combat claims made by British journalist Martin Bashir in his damning documentary Living With Michael Jackson, but she didn't read them. She added that Jackson's associate Marc Schaffel did ask her to rephrase an answer but she insisted she would only do it as long as it didn't change the meaning of her answer. Rowe told the court she was excited to do the interview because she was expecting to see her children and Jackson again. Jackson cut all ties to Rowe when they divorced in 1999. The prosecution called Rowe as a witness, hoping her testimony would prove the pop star conspired to hold his child molestation accuser's family hostage while they filmed a scripted segment for his image-improving video. Court experts claim Rowe's testimony may have wrecked the prosecution's conspiracy and kidnapping case.
I'm surprised he seems to still be in her high praises, considering the press's constant allegations that she's after this or that. But I guess maybe she just wishes to visit her kids. I'm not entirely sure how she may have ruined the Prosecution's kidnapping case, but it would be interesting to see how it develops.
What kidnapping case? By far the accusation of MJ holding this family hostage isn’t supported by much fact and even if they were held against their will, Sneddon hasn’t connected MJ to any of it, just his protégés.
See, the problem for Sneddon with Debbie Rowe is that she was the prosecution’s witness not the defense. The prosecution said in opening statements that she would collaborate his version and support the accuser’s story when in fact she did the opposite. She bolstered MJ’s defense even before they called their first witness.
My assessment of the prosecutor’s case thus far is that it is about 50/50 at best. There’s more latitude on the side of reasonable doubt than the side of guilt. I believe Sneddon knew this going into this trial. This is why he once again raided MJ’s ranch a month prior to jury selection to try and bolster his lack luster case against Mike.
This also shows in his witness selections. He’s trying so hard that he’s undoing any momentum he had during the earlier weeks of the trial and it appears that he’s throwing so many stones in hopes that one will hit the target and it has a slight scent of desperation.
I think MJ will completely skate on the kidnapping charges. It almost seems ridiculous to assert such. The prosecution’s case is strongest on the charges of molestation and while I’ve seen some definite eye popping circumstances, I think he’s falling short in meeting his burden as a prosecutor. Trying to make so many other ridiculous charges stick may be part of Sneddon’s demise with regards to the core of his charges against Mike, which is molesting the boy.
That's true oneofpeace, but I've got a feeling if they'd stuck solely with the molestation charges, the evidence still wouldn't be that damning (the defense has tore apart a majority of the prosecution's witnesses)... I think by adding on a bunch of other charges that seem so ridiculous, they may have boosted their chances of getting the molestation charge to stick, because it seems so... trivial, almost. The Jury may even feel obligated to find him guilty of at least one thing.
Well, that's my thought at least, let's see how it goes.
I heard vaguely that Debbie Rowe had said she did lie in the documentary. She said in the doco that MJ was a good father but the prosecuters asked her abou that on the stand she admitted that she wasn't that confident in his parenting abilities.
Do you think she is using her appearance in this case to
a) get back in to Michael's good books with her glowing reference so she can have access to her kids, or
b) maybe if she questions his parenting ability publicly in this trial, it may help her custody battle?
PS: who played Debbie in the re-enactment of the trial on TV?
I saw the reenactment and didn’t know the actress who played Rowe but her words were interesting. As it turns out, she told detectives something totally different earlier this year and that’s why Sned sought to put her on the stand.
I believe she did it to get to see her children but she could have gotten a lawyer for that. I really don’t know of any judge that would deny the children their mother, even if Rowe was paid to walk away from them because the needs of the children certainly outweigh the wants of MJ.
Sneddon is over-prosecuting this case, which shows to me that they are worried about it. In all his efforts to prove MJ held them against their will (which I believe is absurd, especially when they repeatedly returned after each “kidnapping” ), he has yet to tie Mike to any of it.
Furthermore, not withstanding MJ’s nonsense, it was completely ridiculous to allow accusers of MJ from more than 10yrs ago, all of whom have been involved with lawsuits with MJ and found by a court of law to be not only lying but liable, to testify in court against him. Then this judge allows 2 books given to Mike prior to 93 as a gift, that were locked away in a file cabinet in a back room to be somehow admitted as evidence of wrong doing because they contained some pictures of nude children playing? None of those books were illegal to own nor were they kiddy porn.
There are so many avenues to lay down an appeal should MJ be convicted it’s not funny. So what if MJ did a rebuttal video, that’s not illegal. And claims made by the family that MJ held them against their will in which they narrowly escaped on at least 3 occasions is a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Sneddon is allowing his personal feelings to obstacle his better judgments. Clearly he has axes to grind with Mike. I don’t know how the jury would miss that.
Mike on the other hand needs some serious therapy. After so many allegations and settlements, he continues to put himself in these predicaments however I don’t think he’ll admit himself. He needs to be court ordered into therapy if it’s legal to do so even if not convicted. Obviously he cannot help himself. Maybe they should deem him incompetent to some degree however I doubt if the courts could enforce such an order on this merit alone.
This case has gotten so ridiculas it is more like a made for TV movie. I think it should have been a straight up stand-off between MJ and the accuser on just the current allegations. Guards, celeb witnesses, past accusers and all that other bulljive have made this a setup for a mistrial. Lets face it, no one will never know the truth no matter what the outcome.
I believe that MJ has some deep rooted pedophiliac feelings, but I don't think he could actually do some of the things that some people say they saw in the open or would have been that stupid to molest powerful child stars.
Furthermore, not withstanding MJ’s nonsense, it was completely ridiculous to allow accusers of MJ from more than 10yrs ago, all of whom have been involved with lawsuits with MJ and found by a court of law to be not only lying but liable, to testify in court against him. Then this judge allows 2 books given to Mike prior to 93 as a gift, that were locked away in a file cabinet in a back room to be somehow admitted as evidence of wrong doing because they contained some pictures of nude children playing? None of those books were illegal to own nor were they kiddy porn.
Well, this is the problem. The case isn't getting enough media attention, like, say, Scott Peterson or OJ did. To rectify this, the judge, in desperate need for ratings as most judges are, decided to allow in old witnesses. As a point of law, it's not really sound, but as far as entertainment value goes, it got the MJ trial back up there.
I didnt know that America had a law against that. In Australia or England (I think) and Germany (I know), it can be quite common for kids to drink every now and then, and there's no law against giving them alcohol, as long as it's on private property.
gaboman said this in post #9 : Yeah, not for very long though.
I didnt know that America had a law against that. In Australia or England (I think) and Germany (I know), it can be quite common for kids to drink every now and then, and there's no law against giving them alcohol, as long as it's on private property.
I think minors are allowed wine in France as well, with meals, but Im not sure about that.
Out here if you get caught giving kids alcohol under the age of 21 you can be charged with contributing to the deliquency of a minor(s)...or/and serving alcohol to minors. Its only a misdemeanor though, and its usually followed by a 120/180 days or so in jail plus a fine...but it all depends on how many counts as well...so depending on that, it could consist of more time in jail if someone is convicted of a bunch of counts....Im not sure in this case what it would consist of though...nor am I familiar with California state law, and how they handle these types of charges.
), he has yet to tie Mike to any of it.