-
Wivvy.
User deleted
Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 1 of 3
FEBRUARY 22, 2012
by sanemjfanOn April 11th, 2005 Michael Jackson’s former publicist of 34 years Bob Jones, and former Jackson family friend Stacy Brown were called to testify against MJ by the prosecution. During this time period, they were in the process of writing a sleazy “tell-all” book called “The Man Behind The Mask”, and Sneddon and his goons obviously thought that they had a lot of dirt on MJ. Here is what Sneddon had to say about what Bob Jones would testify about when he submitted his PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES pleading on December 10th, 2004:
Bob Jones worked for Michael Jackson for 34 years as his public relations advisor and played a significant role in managing Jackson’s career as a pop star. His termination by Jackson in early 2004 severed his business relationship with Jackson.
During those 34 years, Mr. Jones was intimately involved in Jackson’s career. He accompanied Jackson on his tours. He traveled with Jackson on business and musical projects. He traveled with Jackson on vacations and was present when he entertained a succession of young boys.
Over the years Jones observed a procession of young boys, who were described by Jackson as his “little friends” or “special friends.” The “special friends” status meant lavish gifts to the young boys and their parents, trips with Jackson on tour, vacations, and sharing Jackson’s bedroom and eventually his bed. Mr. Jones was amazed at Jackson’s ability to determine a “woo-able” child and compliant parent(s). According to Jones, Jackson operated with a great deal of finesse in his relationship with these young boys and the parents.
Jones was aware of one such young child with whom Jackson managed to carry on a clandestine relationship for years. The boy and his parents traveled with him around the world throughout 1988 and 1989 on the “Bad” tour. Jackson and the young boy spent virtually all their time together. The boy would sleep in Jackson’s room at night. In the afternoons Jackson would send the parents shopping at his expense, clearing the way for him to spend hours in the privacy of his bedroom with the young boys.
During the time of this tour, while in Paris, Jones told Jackson, “The press is going to start asking questions about all these little white boys you keep around.” Jones described Jackson’s angry retort, “Who cares what they think?”
Jones describes a trip in 1992 when he traveled to Africa, primarily to the Republic of Gabon. Upon their departure from LAX for Africa, Jones was waived to Jackson’s limo, which was being swarmed by media. He looked inside and saw another of Michael Jackson’s “little friends” sitting on Jackson’s lap. Michael Jackson had somehow convinced the parents, who resided in Australia, to allow the child to travel with Jackson to Africa without parental supervision. They hid the boy so Michael Jackson could get on the plane and the press would not be aware of the child’s presence. During the course of their stay in the African countries of Gabon, Tanzania, Kenya and Morocco, Jones saw the boy go into Michael Jackson’s private bedroom and stay with Jackson for long, long periods of time. Jones states that he is aware that the parents received expensive gifts from Jackson.
Jones described another of Jackson’s “special friends” as another young child from Australia. He remembered this boy’s mom would often complain to Bill Bray. She would be begging to see her child. She was asking Bill Bray to intercede with Michael Jackson to see her own son.
Jones described how Michael Jackson usually lost interest in the boys once they reached the approximate age of 13. Jones describes Jackson as devious, a manipulator and a schemer. Jones believes that the entire Neverland Ranch environment is an enormous expensive lure, the ultimate candy from a stranger by which Michael Jackson gains the confidence and affection from young boys and creates the bond that gives them “special friends” status. Jones saw young boys go into Michael Jackson’s room and not come out for three or four days. Jones said Jackson had a terminology for women. He didn’t want any of them around at all. Jones knew Jackson well enough to know that he had no desire for women and that he had a preoccupation with young boys. According to Jones, Jackson had a saying that went like this: “No wenches, bitches, heifers, and hoes.”
Mr. Jones was present when Jackson traveled with the Chandler family. Jones identified Jordan Chandler as another of Jackson’s “special friends.” Mr. Jones described an occasion when Jackson had taken June and Jordan Chandler on a trip to Monaco. He observed Jackson and Jordan hugging a lot. Jones stated that as they flew a plane from Monaco back to the United States, he observed Jordan Chandler sitting next to Michael Jackson. Jordan had his lead on Jackson’s chest. That Jackson would lick the top of Jordan Chandler’s head. Jones had almost forgotten about this incident until he heard various media accounts describing Jackson’s almost exact behavior with Gavin Arvizo.
Well, that’s Sneddon’s story, and he’s sticking to it! So let’s see what happened when Jones and Brown actually testified! Before I get to Jones’ testimony, I want to take this opportunity to refute Jones’ claim that MJ “hid” the young Australian boy named Brett Barnes from the press: in the video below, which consists of a compilation of photos and footage from MJ’s 1992 trip to Africa, at the 0:05 second mark, you can clearly see MJ with Barnes out in the open, in full view of the media and public!
Here is Bob Jones’ direct examination from assistant District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss!
Here is where Jones first discusses his book:
4 So I believe you testified you were
5 terminated late in 2004; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And since that time have you had any
8 employment?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Have you been involved in any activity at
11 this time concerning — during that period of time
12 since your termination that concerns your years of
13 employment with Michael Jackson?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What is that?
16 A. I went to the State of California and filed
17 a complaint for my vacation pay.
18 Q. All right. Other than that, have you been
19 involved in the writing of any memoirs of your years
20 with Michael Jackson?
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 THE WITNESS: Is it —
24 THE COURT: You may answer.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
26 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And can you
27 specifically tell me what you’ve been doing in terms
28 of writing those memoirs? 5525
1 A. Preparing a book.
2 Q. Preparing a book?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what is the subject matter of that book?
5 A. My — well, my years and — my years with
6 Michael Jackson.
Here is where it gets heated! Auchincloss hammers Jones on whether he truly remembered if MJ licked Jordan Chandler’s head in 1993!
8 Q. Mr. Jones, during the World Music Awards
9 when you were watching Mr. Jackson and Jordie
10 Chandler sitting together, did you ever see Mr.
11 Jackson lick Jordie Chandler’s head?
12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. Have you been interviewed by police officers
14 concerning this matter?
15 A. Not that I recall.
16 Q. Didn’t you have an interview with Steve
17 Robel and your attorney and myself last week in the
18 victim/witness room —
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. — concerning this incident?
21 A. Yes, yes, yes.
22 Q. At that meeting, didn’t you tell Mr. Robel
23 and myself and your attorney that you weren’t sure
24 if that happened?
25 A. I was very —
26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
27 THE WITNESS: I was adamant in saying I was
28 not sure that that happened. I could — I could 5530
1 definitely say that they were embraced in one
2 another’s arms on the flight, but I don’t recall
3 anything about head licking.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, didn’t
5 you say that you didn’t remember that, but you
6 weren’t sure whether or not Mr. Jackson licked
7 Jordie Chandler’s head?
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading, and
9 argumentative, and misstates the evidence.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is impeachment, Your
11 Honor.
12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I might have said that. But I
15 don’t recall.
16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You don’t recall
17 whether you said that?
18 A. No, I don’t recall ever seeing any head
19 licking, and I made that as adamant as I could.
20 Q. All right. So is it your testimony today
21 that you don’t have a recollection of the head
22 licking —
23 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Argumentative,
24 and asked and answered, and leading.
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I don’t think I’ve gotten
26 an answer yet.
27 THE COURT: Well, you haven’t got the
28 question out, so go ahead and state your question. 5531
1 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m trying to clarify
2 the state of your memory, sir.
3 A. Sure.
4 Q. Is it your testimony today that you do not
5 remember whether or not you saw any head licking?
6 A. No. I don’t remember having seen any head
7 licking.
8 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say you were not
9 saying it couldn’t have happened?
10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; argumentative.
11 THE COURT: Sustained.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Calls for speculation.
13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Are you saying you just
14 simply do not have a recollection of it?
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and
16 answered; argumentative; and leading.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
Auchincloss begins to question Jones about the contents of his book, and when asked if the book is fact or fiction, Jones a surprising answer! Well, actually it really isn’t surprising, considering that it’s a tell-all book motivated by money and revenge! Notice how Judge Melville asks Auchincloss if its his intent to impeach Jones with the contents of his book, and he says “Yes!”
18 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Jones, you said
19 you’re writing a book in this case?
20 A. Sure.
21 Q. What is the title of that book?
22 A. “The Man Behind the Mask.”
23 Q. What is the complete title of that book?
24 A. “The Man” —
25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Objection.
26 Hearsay; relevance.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 You may answer. 5532
1 THE WITNESS: Oh. “The Man Behind the
2 Mask.” In all honesty, I don’t — I can’t tell you
3 the subtitle.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You don’t recall the
5 name of your book?
6 A. No, I don’t recall the subtitle. I do know
7 “An Insider’s View of the Rise and Fall of the King
8 of Pop.” Maybe that’s it.
9 Q. Is the name of your book, “Michael Jackson,
10 The Man in the Mirror, An Insider’s Account of the
11 King of Pop’s Spectacular and Catastrophic Fall from
12 Grace”?
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; hearsay.
15 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: That is not the title
16 of your book?
17 A. The “Catastrophic” —
18 THE COURT: Just a moment. There’s an
19 objection.
20 It’s overruled.
21 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
22 THE WITNESS: “Catastrophic Fall” was taken
23 out. It was a suggested title and I took that
24 “Catastrophic” out. And it isn’t “The Man Behind
25 the Mirror.” It’s “The Man Behind the Mask.” Maybe
26 one of the suggested titles was that other that I
27 did not approve of.
28 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is your book presently 5533
1 at the publisher?
2 A. It is being edited, but the book is not
3 complete. It is far from complete.
4 Q. Is your book presently at the publisher?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. What’s the name of that publisher?
7 A. System, I think. My co-writer handled that
8 end of it.
9 Q. And your book is currently being edited?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Has it been accepted by the publisher as a
12 prospect for publication?
13 A. It has been, but it has not been approved by
14 me.
15 Q. The manuscript that is at the publisher —
16 well, let me strike that.
17 Is the book that is being reviewed by your
18 publisher currently an honest account of your years
19 working with Michael Jackson?
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Calls for
21 speculation; irrelevant opinion.
22 THE COURT: Sustained.
23 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Have you reviewed the
24 manuscript that is at the publisher’s?
25 A. I have looked at a manuscript that has not
26 been approved by me.
27 Q. How many times have you looked at this
28 manuscript? 5534
1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; relevance.
2 THE COURT: I’m not sure where you’re going
3 with this. Are you — is it your intent to impeach
4 him with his manuscript, is that what you’re —
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes.
6 THE COURT: All right. The objection is
7 overruled.
8 THE WITNESS: Perhaps I’ve looked at it twice
9 and I have — I have a co-writer.
10 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Okay. This manuscript
11 that you’ve looked at, is it fact or fiction?
12 A. It’s part —
13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; no foundation.
14 There’s a co-writer. It’s not been approved. It’s
15 being edited by some other people.
16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m talking about the
17 manuscript he’s looked at.
18 THE COURT: Objection’s overruled.
19 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Is this a factual
20 manuscript or is it a fictional manuscript?
21 A. It is factual to a degree.
22 Q. To what degree is it factual?
23 A. It’s to a degree, because I — my co-writer
24 also has included things that I didn’t approve of.
This is where Auchincloss asks Jones to describe in detail the portions of the manuscript that he wrote, compared to what he did not write. Jones obviously doesn’t have a lot of faith in what he wrote!
2 Q. If I’m accurate, Mr. Jones, you indicated
3 the first paragraph in the lower portion of the page
4 you didn’t write, but the second paragraph you did
5 write?
6 A. Yes.
7 THE COURT: Is that clear to you which he
8 indicated, Counsel?
9 MR. MESEREAU: I think so, but I’d like to
10 talk to the prosecutor first. I think I understand.
11 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. That second
12 paragraph — Mr. Jones, that second paragraph is an
13 account of what you observed at the World Music
14 Awards; is that accurate?
15 A. That’s what I observed on the airplane.
16 Q. Okay. In that paragraph, it states —
17 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It’s impeachment. And I
19 can show it to you, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.
21 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: It states, “I looked at
22 what was going on with the king and the boy.” Who
23 is “the king” in your —
24 A. The king of pop, Michael Jackson.
25 Q. All right. “Others looked at them rather
26 strange, too. They were holding each other tight,
27 almost in a romantic sense, cooing. There were
28 pecks on the cheeks and licks on the top of the 5537
1 head.”
2 Those are your words, sir, true?
3 A. Sir —
4 Q. That’s a “yes” or “no” question.
5 A. Yes, with reservations.
6 Q. Mr. Jones, did you see Michael Jackson lick
7 Jordie’s head?
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
9 answered.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
In this excerpt, Auchincloss successfully impeached Jones by asking him about an email where he gleefully states that the story of MJ licking Jordan’s head will “bite him” because he was also accused of doing it in the current case! This ends Jones’ direct examination.
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Mr. Jones, I show you
15 People’s Exhibit 804. It appears to be an e-mail.
16 Can you identify that for me, please?
17 A. It’s from an e-mail that I sent to Stacy
18 Brown, my co-writer.
19 Q. The cite — well, I won’t quote, but that is
20 your e-mail address at the top?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. And those are your words?
23 A. If they were sent by my e-mail, yes, they
24 have to be my words.
25 Q. You don’t dispute that those are your words?
26 A. No.
27 Q. And I show you People’s Exhibit No. 805. If
28 you’d identify that for me, please. Also appears to 5538
1 be an e-mail dated the same date, but the time on it
2 is 22:30:17 EDT.
3 The first one, for identification purposes,
4 804, is dated — the time on it is 19:55:32 EDT.
5 Okay. So showing you Exhibit 805, is that
6 one of your e-mails, sir?
7 A. Well, they’re both from my e-mail.
8 Q. All right. You wrote them?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And in the first e-mail, 804 —
11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Offered as impeachment.
13 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.
14 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You wrote — and
15 this — first of all, let me ask you, is the date of
16 this e-mail accurate, October 30th, 2004?
17 A. I would imagine it is, sir.
18 Q. In that e-mail, you wrote, “Stacy: The
19 licking is going to be important because he did it
20 in this case, too.” Are those your words, sir?
21 A. Apparently so.
22 Q. And in the e-mail that was dated the same
23 day just a few hours later, did you write, “Stacy:
24 The stuff with Jordie will bite him big”?
25 A. If it’s — if it came from my e-mail, I
26 wrote it. But I don’t — that sounds a little
27 strange from my writing.
28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no 5539
1 further questions.
2 THE COURT: Cross-examine?
3 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.
Here is Mesereau’s cross-examination! He gets right down to business by asking Jones about his interview with the police on April 7th, 2005, just a few days prior to his testimony. In that interview, Jones repeatedly denied ever seeing MJ lick anybody’s head! Jones also admits that portions of his book were sensationalized by Stacy Brown!
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. MESEREAU:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jones.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. My name is Tom Mesereau and I speak for
10 Michael Jackson.
11 A. Sure.
12 Q. We haven’t met before, right?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. The prosecutor referred to an
15 interview that you had with Sergeant Steve Robel and
16 another officer on April 7th, 2005.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. Do you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And do you remember you were asked by an
21 officer, “Um, did you see Mr Jackson engage in any
22 head licking in the World Music Awards?” And your
23 answer was, “No, no, no,” right?
24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q. And then you were asked, “Um, did you see
26 Mr. Jackson engage in any head licking of anybody?”
27 And your answer was, “Never.” Remember that?
28 A. I recall. 5540
1 Q. Okay. And what you were not — when you
2 were dealing with your co-writer and publisher, you
3 were not under oath, were you?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And of course today you are, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; argumentative.
8 THE COURT: Overruled. Next question. He
9 answered that.
10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The reality is, Mr. Jones,
11 you have repeatedly said you don’t recall seeing
12 head licking on the plane, right?
13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; misstates the
14 evidence.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t recall seeing
17 head licking by Michael on the plane with Jordie, do
18 you?
19 A. I said it, but it was in the — it appeared
20 in an e-mail. I said I did not recall seeing it,
21 but it — apparently so, because it appeared in an
22 e-mail that came from my machine.
23 Q. Well, in response to the prosecutor’s
24 questions, you said you had reservations about that
25 statement —
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. — correct?
28 And what are your reservations about that 5541
1 statement?
2 A. That I just don’t recall exactly seeing
3 that. I truly don’t.
4 Q. And would you agree when you’re working with
5 a co-writer and a publisher to prepare a book about
6 Michael Jackson, there’s pressure to make things
7 sensational when you can, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And your publisher and others want a book
10 that can sell, correct?
11 A. My co-writer. The publisher wasn’t involved
12 in that particular end of it.
13 Q. Okay. And certainly, having worked with
14 Michael all those years, you’ve seen numerous
15 attempts by numerous people to sensationalize
16 aspects of Michael’s life, right?
17 A. Correct.
In this excerpt, Mesereau asks Jones about how he communicates with co-author Stacy Brown as they write their tell-all book, and about Jones’ recollection of what he told police during an interview a few days prior to testifying. Notice the number of corrections that he sarcastically mentioned that he had to make their manuscript because of Stacy Brown inserting things that he didn’t say!
18 Q. Okay. Now, did you begin writing your book
19 after your employment ended?
20 A. I had made notes on certain things. Yes,
21 the actual beginning of the writing of the book
22 started after my employment ended, yes.
23 Q. And has there been an effort by you or your
24 co-writer to market the book overseas?
25 A. Well, I would imagine that the publisher
26 has.
27 Q. Has there been an attempt to market it in
28 the United States? 5554
1 A. I would imagine that the publisher has.
2 Q. Okay. And who is in charge of that issue?
3 A. My co-writer.
4 Q. Okay. Now, do you typically meet with your
5 co-writer periodically?
6 A. We talk on the phone. That’s — that’s
7 perhaps one of the reasons there is some confusion,
8 because our — he’s based in New York and I’m based
9 in Los Angeles.
10 Q. Okay. And do you sort of fax or e-mail
11 manuscripts to one another?
12 A. We e-mail.
13 Q. Okay. And do you then typically correct or
14 change what you think is either inaccurate or
15 inappropriate?
16 A. Oh, I’ve changed millions of things that
17 were inaccurate that I didn’t say.
18 Q. And how far away from having a product that
19 you think is accurate and complete are you?
20 A. I would say six to eight weeks.
21 Q. Okay. Have you come up with a date during
22 which you intend to announce the availability of the
23 book?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. Do you remember in your interview on
26 April 7th, 2005, a police officer asking you about
27 whether or not there was any licking on the plane by
28 Michael, and you said, “I just don’t remember and I 5555
1 would be lying to say that I did”?
2 A. Of course I recall saying that.
3 Q. And that was the truth, right?
4 A. Yes.
In this excerpt (which closes out Mesereau’s cross-examination), Mesereau tries to catch prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss in a lie by getting Bob Jones to admit that Auchincloss misquoted what he said about witnessing the “head licking” incident in his interview with him!
11 Q. Have you ever spoken to any prosecutor for
12 the government in this case directly?
13 A. Who do you mean, the government?
14 Q. These people. The prosecutors.
15 A. Certainly. I’ve — Mr. Auchincloss and
16 Steve Robel.
17 Q. When did you last meet with Mr. Auchincloss?
18 A. I met with him on Friday when I was told to
19 go home and come back.
20 Q. Okay. And did you meet with him before
21 that?
22 A. Of course. You mentioned an April date that
23 Mr. Auchincloss had me to come up.
24 Q. Okay. Was that April 7th?
25 A. I guess, sir. I don’t — I’m not good with
26 dates, so —
27 Q. You had an interview with Sergeant Steve
28 Robel, right? 5557
1 A. And Mr. Auchincloss.
2 Q. Okay. How many meetings did you have with
3 Sergeant Robel, if you know?
4 A. I only met Sergeant Robel when I was with
5 Mr. Auchincloss. I met them both at the same time.
6 Q. Okay. So when you said, “I just don’t
7 remember and I would be lying to say that I did,”
8 about head licking, Mr. Auchincloss was right there,
9 right?
10 A. We were — we were there, yes, we were —
11 the three of us were in the room.
12 Q. So he clearly heard you say that, correct?
13 A. Mr. Auchincloss was in the room with Mr.
14 Robel.
15 Q. And he tried to misquote you in court today,
16 correct?
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. This is
18 argumentative; improper.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions, Your
21 Honor.
Let’s look at what Auchincloss quoted Jones as saying about the head licking incident from earlier in his direct examination of him. Auchincloss did indeed misquote Jones (whether intentional or not!) by omitting the following from the end his quote: “I would be lying if I said that I did!”
16 Q. Didn’t you have an interview with Steve
17 Robel and your attorney and myself last week in the
18 victim/witness room —
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. — concerning this incident?
21 A. Yes, yes, yes.
22 Q. At that meeting, didn’t you tell Mr. Robel
23 and myself and your attorney that you weren’t sure
24 if that happened?
25 A. I was very –
26 MR. MESEREAU: Objection.
27 THE WITNESS: I was adamant in saying I was
28 not sure that that happened. I could — I could 5530
1 definitely say that they were embraced in one
2 another’s arms on the flight, but I don’t recall
3 anything about head licking.
4 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: My question is, didn’t
5 you say that you didn’t remember that, but you
6 weren’t sure whether or not Mr. Jackson licked
7 Jordie Chandler’s head?
8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading, and
9 argumentative, and misstates the evidence.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: This is impeachment, Your
11 Honor.
12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
13 You may answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I might have said that. But I
15 don’t recall.
16 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: You don’t recall
17 whether you said that?
18 A. No, I don’t recall ever seeing any head
19 licking, and I made that as adamant as I could.
Once again, this is what Bob Jones said in his interview with the police, and Mesereau was professional enough to actually read from the transcript, instead of paraphrase Jones as Auchincloss did!
25 Q. Okay. Do you remember in your interview on
26 April 7th, 2005, a police officer asking you about
27 whether or not there was any licking on the plane by
28 Michael, and you said, "I just don’t remember and I 5555
1 would be lying to say that I did”?
2 A. Of course I recall saying that.
3 Q. And that was the truth, right?
4 A. Yes.
After Mesereau concluded his cross-examination of Jones, Auchincloss then begins his re-direct examination. He was intent on focusing on the head licking incident, and a sparring match between he, Jones, and Mesereau ensued. The quote that Auchincloss misquoted earlier was the source of the tension, because Auchincloss tried to argue that what Jones meant was that he saw MJ licking Jordan Chandler’s head, but didn’t remember it at the time of the police interview, but now remembers it:
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
25 Q. Mr. Jones, you told Stacy Brown about this
26 head licking incident, true?
27 A. Apparently I did, sir.
28 Q. And you have previously stated that the 5558
1 words on the second paragraph of People’s Exhibit
2 803, which I’ve shown you – that’s the quotes from
3 the book —
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. — the second paragraph – those are your
6 words?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. Your Honor, if
9 I may, I’d like to admit —
10 THE WITNESS: With — with — may I see
11 that, sir, again?
12 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, you may.
13 A. Because — it may be with exception.
14 Oh, yes, those are my words.
15 Q. All right. So you agree that those are your
16 words.
17 Your Honor, I’d like to admit People’s
18 Exhibit 803 into evidence at this time.
19 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;
20 foundation; relevance.
21 THE COURT: Let me see the exhibit.
22 All right. The objection’s sustained. It’s
23 not going into evidence.
24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right. May I see
25 that?
26 Q. But so that we’re clear today about your
27 testimony, is it true that you looked at what was
28 going on with the king and the boy, they were 5559
1 holding each other tightly, almost in a romantic
2 sense —
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Asked and
4 answered; move to strike.
5 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe there’s been —
6 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
7 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: “Holding each other
8 tightly almost in a romantic sense, cooing. There
9 were pecks on the cheeks and licks on the top of the
10 head”; is that true, those are your words?
11 A. I — I — with reservation. I know about
12 the — as I told you —
13 Q. I’m asking you are those your words, sir?
14 A. They apparently are my words. If you have
15 them in an e-mail from me.
16 Q. Today your testimony is that, “The licking
17 is going to be important,” you told Stacy that,
18 “because it happened in this case, too.” Those are
19 your words as well?
20 A. I don’t recall saying anything about this
21 case. But if it was in an e-mail, I said it.
22 Q. You acknowledge that those words — that
23 this is your e-mail address?
24 A. B7436@aol —
25 Q. And this is — you acknowledged this is one
26 of your e-mails to Stacy Brown?
27 A. Nobody else could have done it but me.
28 Q. So do you acknowledge, based upon all the 5560
1 information that you have today, that you did, in
2 fact, see Michael Jackson lick Jordie Chandler on
3 the top of the head, sir? Yes or no.
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
5 answered.
6 THE WITNESS: I guess — yes.
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: All right.
8 THE COURT: Just a moment. There was an
9 objection.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Sorry.
11 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. The
12 answer was, “Yes.”
13 Q. BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS: And your testimony is
14 that this incident happened on a plane flying back
15 from Europe?
16 A. On flying back from Paris to Los Angeles.
17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you. I have no
18 further questions.
Mesereau begins his recross-examination by getting Jones to acknowledge what he told the police in his interview, and at the very end, he finally acknowledges what that he told police he’d be lying if he said he remembered that incident:
20 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. MESEREAU:
22 Q. Mr. Jones, on April 7th, you told the police
23 and Mr. Auchincloss you’d be lying if you said you
24 saw Mr. Jackson licking Mr. Chandler, right?
25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Misstates the
26 evidence and argumentative.
27 THE COURT: Overruled.
28 You may answer. Do you want the question 5561
1 read back?
2 THE WITNESS: I would say since he — I have
3 to say it has to be true if it came in my e-mail.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But, sir, you just told
5 the police the other day that you’d be lying if you
6 said he did that, right?
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objections.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Right?
10 A. I — I, again, have to say what I said. If
11 it’s in my e-mail, it’s true.
12 Q. But you just told the jury you don’t recall
13 seeing something like that, correct?
14 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Asked and
15 answered; argumentative.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 THE WITNESS: I go back with the same
18 answer. It was in my e-mail. So if it was in my
19 e-mail, I’m taking responsibility for the e-mail.
20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Well, but you’ve also
21 indicated a number of the things you wrote are not
22 accurate, true?
23 A. I didn’t write anything. My co-writer wrote
24 those things. But he is — he has shown me an
25 e-mail that I wrote and sent to my co-writer.
26 Q. But, sir, you just told the jury what you
27 told the police last week, which is that you’d be
28 lying if you said you saw that, right? 5562
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I believe that misstates
2 the evidence.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 Is that what — he’s really asking you, “Is
5 that what you told the police?” Did you tell the
6 police —
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what I told the
8 police.
9 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
Auchincloss decided to ask Jones even more questions about the emails and his statements, and afterwards Mesereau declined to further question him, as he had already established the fact that Jones told police he would be lying if he said he remembered the incident, and that he was pressured to sensationalize his book!
11 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS:
13 Q. Mr. Jones, you didn’t say, “I would be lying
14 if I said that.” You said, “I would be lying if I
15 said I remembered that”; isn’t that true?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. And is it fair to say that based on
18 everything you have before you today, you now
19 remember the incidents that you’ve testified
20 concerning the licking?
21 A. I don’t remember. But there is an e-mail
22 which provides explicit evidence that the e-mail
23 came from me.
24 Q. And you believe your e-mails are true;
25 you’ve testified to that?
26 A. I would not have just made it up.
27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you.
28 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5563
1 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may
3 step down.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
5 Subject to re-call.
6 THE COURT: All right. I haven’t excused
7 him.
8 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m sorry.
9 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
10 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Call Stacy Brown.
To show how much of a 180 degree turnaround that Jones did after he decided to write his book, look no further than this lengthy interview that he gave to the Los Angeles Sentinel on September 2nd, 1993. The interview is so long and detailed that we dedicated an entire post to it called “What Bob Jones Really Thought About Michael Jackson”, but here is a short excerpt.
You can take sides if you chose to, and everyone has an opinion. I’ve met Michael, and I chose to believe the best about him. I saw his compassion and his loving kindness towards children. Yet, although I chose to believe all things, I know all things are not expedient for me. But Jones has lived with Jackson upwards of 30 years, and if there was an inkling towards misbehavior on Michael’s part, he would have gleaned it, or Michael is a darn good actor at espionage.
In ending this first of a two-part story on Jones’ long association with Michael, and what happens when mega-minds converge, let me end on Jones’ words and Jesus’ and not Michael’s detractors for we’ll all have to wait until the final verdict is in. And then will we even know the thing-in-itself, Jones’ above statements make it abundantly clear, can we ever be really sure? Jones told me, “God has given him some kind of gift, and he ( Michael) believes in sharing that gift. And he realizes that there is something that God has given him that is special, and that is the reason he does and shares with the kids and the youth the way he does.” Truth. God knows. Michael has always let his moderation be known to all men.
And in the immortal words of Jesus, “Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.”
And if that wasn’t enough proof of how much he supported and defended MJ in 1993, look at the foreword that he wrote for Lisa Campbell’s 1994 book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, which completely exonerates MJ of the Chandler accusations. (It can be downloaded for free from Google Books by pressing the “download PDF” button from the drop down box in the upper right corner of the screen, as well as her 1993 book “The King of Pop”).
And finally, here is a rebuttal to a sleazy trash documentary by some amateur “journalist” named Jacques Peretti called “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened”, and Jones was featured prominently in it, along with Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez. And this post further scrutinizes Jones’ testimony regarding Michael’s trip to Monaco in May 1993.
In Part 2, I will dissect Stacy Brown’s testimony, and fact check his book “Man Behind The Mask”!
Fonte: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/...sk-part-1-of-2/
Edited by ArcoIris - 15/4/2018, 02:48
.
"Perchè lavorare quando si può citare in giudizio Michael Jackson?"Analisi dei fatti e delle affermazioni di Wade Robson e James Safechuck |
