Michael Jackson: Ex-Wife is Setback for Prosecution

Jackson Trial Update
Wednesday, April 27

Debbie Rowe, the mother of Michael Jacksons eldest two children and his ex-wife, was called as a witness today by the prosecution. In opening argument, the prosecution told the jury Rowe would testify that Jackson and his team had scripted her interview in video intended to counter the negative British documentary in which Jackson said he allowed boys to sleep in his room.

Prosecutors expected Rowe to shore up the accuser's mother's testimony that she and her kids were held hostage to get them to agree to participate in the rebuttal video using a prepared script.

But Rowe said just the opposite on the witness stand today.

"I didn't want anyone to be able to come back to me and say my interview was rehearsed," Rowe said. "As Mr. Jackson knows, no one can tell me what to say." She reiterated that she had been offered a list of questions by her interviewers but she declined to look at them before she talked. "It was a cold interview and I wanted to keep it that way," she said.

Rowe was a nurse for one of Jackson's plastic surgeons when they married in 1996, and they had two children together -- 8-year-old Prince Michael and a 7-year-old daughter named Paris. The couple filed for divorce three years later, and Rowe is currently in a family court dispute over visitation with their children.

It was a stunning setback for the prosecution. Rowe will be back on the stand tomorrow. The prosecution is expected to wrap up its case Friday.

< Why Owen and Rogers Brown Should Not Be Confirmed | Note on Comments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Isn't that the kind of thing that they should be able to figure out before they embarass themselves?

    You would think so. If they called her knowing she was going to back out of what she told them previously, they should have either not called her at all or asked the court to have her declared a hostile witness and impeached her. Maybe they are planning that for tomorrow, but it's a poor way to end their case.

    This is a nightmare: Blaghdaddy was sure Jackson diddled these kids, but the more the prosecution opens its mouth, the more Blaghdaddy's glad we have trials and not lynchings (exempt Southern states excluded). Did he do it? Is it a railroad job? What is it with California and inept/corrupt prosecution? Did he do it? Where's Ahnold? Aaahhhhhh!

    Curiouser and curiouser! Blaghdaddy, it does make you wonder who the real diddler is ; )

    Gut feeling tells Blaghdaddy that he diddled the kid back in the '93 case and that he's been doing it ever since...it's just that Jackson has seemed like such a eunuch these past twenty years that Blaghdaddy can't picture him doing the more outrageous things (licking a kid's head!?) that he's accused of doing... Who watches a grown man licking her son's head on a flight and then says, "You wanna stay the night? In Billy's bed? Suuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrre..." Bizarre stuff, and Blaghdaddy's happy he's not on this jury...no book deal in the world could help him decide...and he wouldn't want the duty.

    My take blagdaddy (copping to my degree in developmental psych. but using intuition too)is that Michael is trying to recapture some warped sense of a missed childhood. It turns out that while a molester is with a child, they somehow don't see themselves as a grownup with a child. In the same way an anorexics look in the mirror and see obesity, a grown man engaging in inappropriate actions with a child sees himself as a 6 or 8 or 10 year old. Now, I don't think you have to be sexually attracted to young boys to have that feeling of being 10 around 10 year olds. Can you see how MJ the pretend 12 year old might think it's cool to "hang with the guys" crash in his humungus bed, look at girly mags or sneak a beer? Can you also see how hugely vulnerable this leaves him to exactly the allegations proposed? People seem to forget that in virtually all cases prosecutors DECIDE whether to charge an individual with a crime based on their ability to obtain a conviction AND the perceived benefit to their office and careers of trying a particular case. One must ask oneself in this case, if the defendent hadn't been MJ if the prosecutor wouldn't have laughed the allegations out of his office with a "don't call us, we'll call you!" For those who have read Les Miserables, it certainly brings to mind Inspector Javert and his unrelenting persuit of Jean Valjean (*sigh* I loved that book...)

    I think that the whole trial thing is a waiste of time,clearly the judge is more for the prosecution than for being equally fair to both sides and in the long run Michael will serve some time,my personal feeling is that if he did molest the boythan may justice be serve if he didn't may the truth come out!I also believe that this a modern day lynching!

    I'm curious about why those of you who comment that you "think he did it" well...think he did it? This isn't an attack - but I am wondering how people formulate these impressions/opinions. Personally I can't completely say that he radiates innocence, yet reasonable doubt abounds. Comments, anyone?

    Good points all, mfox, and you could be right about putting oneself in a bad spot. But Blaghdaddy wonders how you give one kid 20 million to go away one day and then agree to be charged in court on another charge the next...better accountant? Michael Jackson should never have been allowed within 100 yards of children after '93, and none of this would be happening. Those of you who swear he's guilty, make sure you never end up as famous as Mikey and have nuts coming out of the woodwork. Blaghdaddy would say, "Wait 'til the trial's over..." Problem with that is, we'll know less then than we did going in!!!

    To Blaghdaddy,
    But Blaghdaddy wonders how you give one kid 20 million to go away one day and then agree to be charged in court on another charge the next...better accountant?
    He probably would have given this kid 20 Mill. too just to not have to go through this kangaroo court. Apparently the prosecutor had other plans for him. My point throughout this is to make sure people understand that most pedophiles don't look like Michael Jackson - they're watching your kids while you're watching Court TV. To qualify, I don't think the parents of molested children are necessarily negligent but often entrust their children to seemingly "normal" people while condemning "that freak" on TV. Look closer to home for the danger.

    You're preaching to the choir, my friend. Blaghdaddy as well likes to wait for the verdict, but what he's saying is that Jackson is soooo bizarre, and the prosecution is soooo hot for him after he wiggled away a couple of times that Blaghdaddy can't separate fact from fiction from fabrication...and this trial's the reason!!!

    Re: Michael Jackson: Ex-Wife is Setback for Prosec (none / 0) (#12)
    by Aaron on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    Part of the weirdness perhaps comes from the difference between a pedophile (an adult who has a sexual fixation on children) and run-of-the-mill child molesters, some of whom are simply predatory or opportunistic. The pedophile is more likely to do what mfox describes, and what might also be described as an immature form of "romancing" or "dating" a child. The pedophile is often seeking a love relationship. Recalling the apartment of a pedophile I encountered back in the 80's - he had a two bedroom apartment. The living room was devoted to a video collection, with literally thousands of videos and a huge TV. One bedroom was devoted to his model train - tens of thousands of dollars in investment, and thousands of hours of time spent constructing a model railroad that consumed a large room in three dimensions - you actually had to lift a hinged part of the track to enter the room. The other bedroom had his bed, and about fifty thousand dollars worth of computer equipment (with one chair - if you weren't in the computer chair, or on the lap of the person in the computer chair, you had to sit on the bed). It was as close to a "Neverland" as he could build in an apartment-style condo unit. Which is not to say that somebody with a form of arrested development might not want a Neverland for personal reasons - just that it is consistent with what a pedophile might create. I cannot conceive of how a person could enter Michael Jackson's world without being concerned that Jackson was a pedophile. I cannot conceive of why a person would allow their minor child to sleep in Jackson's bed, given everything that is known about Jackson, unless that person was either crazy or a sick opportunist, hoping in a "best case scenario" that nothing would happen and they could extort money from Jackson, and in a "worst case scenario" that something would happen and they could "legitimately" obtain money from Jackson. When the first thing that person does after an alleged incident is run to the lawyer who negotiated the first settlement, it screams to me that the person is a sick opportunist, willing to put a child's wellbeing on the line in the hope of scoring or extorting millions of dollars. (If you're so familiar with the past accusations to know the name of the lawyer who negotiated a decade-old settlement, how can you claim any degree of naivete about allowing your child to sleep with the accused?) If it weren't for the "past acts" evidence, I doubt that anybody would be anticipating a conviction.

    Some good points Aaron. What you didn't point out is that I think some people can have a fixation on children without it being of a "sexual" nature. I also want to set myself up as somewhat of an apologist for MJ. Whatever else he may be, MJ is a musical genius. As a whole, geniuses tend to be outlyers on the normalcy curve (my son went to vacation camp at MIT last week and trust me- some of the students there wouldn't do well under the scrutiny of Mom and Pop America either!). Imagine Picasso on trial, or Van Gogh. Imagine Prince sitting there with his skinny little tight-panted butt and ruffled collar and cuffs. I thought a foundation of American justice was consideration of the merits of the charge despite what the defendant looks like. MJ has shown what utter trash that perception is in reality. THINK, people!

    I hope the jury will be as fair as most of the commenters on this blog have been. I worry about the impact of all the "third-party" testimony. It would be only natural for a juror - or anyone - to assume that with so much smoke there must be a fire. But the evidence - at least as it's been reported so far - seems fairly impeachable. As TL (I think) has pointed out before, all the prosecution witnesses seem to have ulterior motives - they're either suing or have sued MJ in the past, or sold stories to a tabloid, or could stand to benefit in some way from a conviction. Is it likely that the accuser in this case would stand to gain in a civil suit should there be a conviction?

    I don't think Jackson molested anyone and the reason I don't think he molested anyone is that all the witnesses who are supposed to support these accusations from 93 and 94 and the current one are either telling absolutely preposterous stories ("MJ cried so I let him sleep with my son."/"Once a year my mother took me to MJ's apartment and we tickled each other and Mom never heard a peep.") or they are known liars or they are looking for money or they owe MJ money. Or several/all of the above. Why would anyone believe any of these people?

    Am I the only one that immediaely suspects anyone constantly referring to himself in third person (e.g. Blaghdaddy)is some kind of freak or perv?

    Re: Michael Jackson: Ex-Wife is Setback for Prosec (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    mfox, while I grant that possibility, it just so happens that Michael Jackson's admitted inclinations happen to be consistent with pedophilia. (Pedophilia is a status not an act, and thus it is possible to be both a pedophile and celibate - being a pedophile doesn't of itself mean "he did it".) (I think "Blaghdaddy" is probably trying to build name recognition for his blog.)

    mfox (who is trying to speak in the third person to see if it feels freaky or perverted : ) ) agrees with Aaron, taking his word that there are admitted inclinations as said. Mfox's intuition tells her that this is very close to the truth. With that out of the way, how do you think we should accuse, charge and punish celibate pedophiles? Clearly the current method is not ideal.

    Re: Michael Jackson: Ex-Wife is Setback for Prosec (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:17:38 AM EST
    We shouldn't. We don't have status crimes in this nation. No criminal act? No crime to prosecute.