1995–1999 Debbie Rowe

Rumor Concerning Custody, January 28, 2004

In his column on Fox news, Roger Friedman debunks the recent rumors coming from the British tabloid, The Sun, who claim that Debbie Rowe is suing for custody of Prince and Paris.

“Rowe is said to have laughed heartily when she heard the British tabloid The Sun made up their latest fiction.”

The Sun jumped to the conclusion that she was suing for custody based on the fact that she is Jewish and consequently upset about the Nation Of Islam guarding the children.

Friedman, February 18, 2004

Meanwhile, my sources tell me two other very important facts relating to the ongoing Jackson saga.

“The Nation of Islam is still in control,” is the first message. Despite newspaper reports from London, Michael and Debbie Rowe, the mother of his two eldest children, are not in a custody battle. They never discussed Debbie getting more visitations and the Nation of Islam backing away from Jackson.

“It never happened,” said two sources of mine yesterday. I do wish the London tabloid The Sun would stop inventing these fantasies.

[Jackson] Ex-Wife Subpoenaed by District Attorney, Roger Friedman, December 16, 2004:

Michael Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe, the mother of his two older children, has been subpoenaed to testify in his child-molestation case, sources tell me.

Rowe, mother of Prince Michael and Paris Katherine, was served at her attorney’s office about two weeks ago by Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

This turn of events ratchets up the animosity between Rowe and Jackson even more — if that’s possible.

In October, Jackson refused to pay Rowe her annual alimony payment of about $1 million, claiming that she had breached the confidentiality clause in their divorce agreement.

His specific complaint was that Rowe had appeared on “Entertainment Tonight,” although the piece was about her horses and the sale of her home.

The alimony payment is said to have been placed in escrow by Jackson, but no proof has been offered of that so far.

Jackson’s non-payment to Rowe came at the same time that he cut off other financial obligations, including a major one to his ex-criminal attorney Steve Cochran.

Jackson’s former partner Marc Schaffel, who had been receiving installment payments on money he was owed until he was cut off months ago, is also suing him.

Randy Jackson, Michael’s brother and adviser, is said to be behind the abrupt belt-tightening.

In Rowe’s case, however, the cessation of payments follows a long line of contention between the former spouses. Jackson has refused to speak to Rowe since he persuaded her to defend him in a television interview in February 2003 — the so-called “rebuttal video.”

Rowe, who had appeared to be ambivalent about her children, has grown more and more determined to gain custody since then, sources say.

In a few days, her custody case against Jackson will wind up in front of a Los Angeles family-court judge, although Jackson himself is not expected to attend.

Yesterday, the family law team, led by Michael Abrams, tried to get an extension on the case, but was denied.

Jackson, in turn, is said to have served Rowe’s attorney with a lawsuit which, if he wins, would prevent her from turning over any documents to the district attorney.

“He hasn’t shown up for one hearing on the custody issue,” my source said. “He has a team of lawyers fighting Debbie’s one. But he serves them with huge amounts of papers all the time.”

Jackson, according to my sources, seems unaware that Rowe, who could potentially be a damaging witness for the prosecution in the child-molestation case, is hell-bent on seeing the custody case through to the end.

Rowe is also determined to find out who leaked documents about her and the children to Britain’s News of the World tabloid last spring.

The detailed information, which was also considered confidential, did not come from her, but Rowe and her attorneys may soon give voice to their suspicions about the possible culprits, sources tell me.

Joe Jackson’s Autobio, roughly translated from German, December 2004

“During the time Michael had two children with Debbie Rowe she was a good friend to him. But of course the media just reports the bad stuff and so nobody could read about Lisa Marie and Michael meeting in South Africa, or that they were going out very often. Debbie too, knew that Michael will always love Lisa Marie, and I see it the same way. We never met Debbie, but with Lisa the family stayed in contact even after the divorce. She has a special place in Michael’s heart.”

[Jackson] Ex-Wife Subpoenaed by District Attorney, Roger Friedman, December 16, 2004:

Michael Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe, the mother of his two older children, has been subpoenaed to testify in his child-molestation case, sources tell me.

Rowe, mother of Prince Michael and Paris Katherine, was served at her attorney’s office about two weeks ago by Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

This turn of events ratchets up the animosity between Rowe and Jackson even more — if that’s possible.

In October, Jackson refused to pay Rowe her annual alimony payment of about $1 million, claiming that she had breached the confidentiality clause in their divorce agreement.

His specific complaint was that Rowe had appeared on “Entertainment Tonight,” although the piece was about her horses and the sale of her home.

The alimony payment is said to have been placed in escrow by Jackson, but no proof has been offered of that so far.

Jackson’s non-payment to Rowe came at the same time that he cut off other financial obligations, including a major one to his ex-criminal attorney Steve Cochran.

Jackson’s former partner Marc Schaffel, who had been receiving installment payments on money he was owed until he was cut off months ago, is also suing him.

Randy Jackson, Michael’s brother and adviser, is said to be behind the abrupt belt-tightening.

In Rowe’s case, however, the cessation of payments follows a long line of contention between the former spouses. Jackson has refused to speak to Rowe since he persuaded her to defend him in a television interview in February 2003 — the so-called “rebuttal video.”

Rowe, who had appeared to be ambivalent about her children, has grown more and more determined to gain custody since then, sources say.

In a few days, her custody case against Jackson will wind up in front of a Los Angeles family-court judge, although Jackson himself is not expected to attend.

Yesterday, the family law team, led by Michael Abrams, tried to get an extension on the case, but was denied.

Jackson, in turn, is said to have served Rowe’s attorney with a lawsuit which, if he wins, would prevent her from turning over any documents to the district attorney.

“He hasn’t shown up for one hearing on the custody issue,” my source said. “He has a team of lawyers fighting Debbie’s one. But he serves them with huge amounts of papers all the time.”

Jackson, according to my sources, seems unaware that Rowe, who could potentially be a damaging witness for the prosecution in the child-molestation case, is hell-bent on seeing the custody case through to the end.

Rowe is also determined to find out who leaked documents about her and the children to Britain’s News of the World tabloid last spring.

The detailed information, which was also considered confidential, did not come from her, but Rowe and her attorneys may soon give voice to their suspicions about the possible culprits, sources tell me.

Debbie Rowe Wants Visitation, December 18, 2004

According to court documents, Debbie Rowe is seeking visitation rights with the two children she had with Michael Jackson during their marriage. In 2001, Ms. Rowe gave up all parental rights, but applied for custody of the children two years later. After this, both sides agreed to have retired Judge Stephen Lachs preside over the case. Lachs denied granting custody to Ms. Rowe, but also voided the order that terminated her parental rights. Ms. Rowe then filed applications, including one that sought “settlement” terms with Michael Jackson. The judge denied all, according to court documents.

Michael’s attorney, Thomas Hall, said that he is preparing an appeal of a recent decision made by the retired judge in the matter. Hall plans to file documents from the case and is requesting that they be sealed because they contain information concerning Michael’s finances.

Mr. Hall stressed that while the issue is a separate one from the current criminal case being heard in Santa Barbara, the matter has “exponentially increased the press attention on the parties and their lives.”

Attorney Iris Finsilver, Ms. Rowe’s lawyer, participated by speakerphone in a hearing on Wednesday and opposes the request. Judge Robert Schnider has continued the case until February 2, 2005.

[Jackson's] Ex Gains Ground in Custody Case, Roger Friedman, December 21, 2004:

The nasty nature of the Debbie Rowe-Michael Jackson custody case has been ratcheted up a notch or two since last week.

Recent court documents reveal that last April, Rowe gained significant ground against Jackson when a family court judge voided the previous “parental termination” order, which denied her any rights at all.

This gave Rowe a big leap forward in her efforts to be a part of the lives of son Prince Michael and daughter Paris Katherine.

Rowe is said to be more and more anxious about the children’s situation, with Jackson at the Neverland Ranch as their father’s child-molestation trial looms. Yesterday, Judge Rodney Melville stuck to his guns that the trial must begin on January 31, 2005.

But Rowe would be even more upset if she heard what I was told: that since the most recent police raid on Neverland, Prince Michael, who is 7, now understands that his father is in serious trouble.

He is now asking questions, according to my sources, although he and Paris do not know why the police came to their home in droves. They only know it has something to do with their father.

Michael’s response, I am told, is that he is crying often and is very upset about the police raid.

Rowe’s April win in family court came to light last week when Jackson’s attorney in that case, Thomas Hall, filed papers asking the private judge, Stephen Lachs, to seal all court records.

In particular, Hall wanted financial papers sealed so that others — like Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon — couldn’t have them subpoenaed for his case.

Hall’s papers, though, contained enough extraneous information (including attacks on Rowe) that what was supposed to be private is now available to the public.

Debbie Rowe To Testify, 2nd February, 2005


Debbie Rowe, Michael’s ex wife and mother of two of his three children, has reportedly agreed to provide testimony during the trial.

Ms. Rowe is also filing to regain custody of Prince and Paris after reportedly signing over all rights to Michael following the 1999 divorce.

It has yet to be confirmed if Lisa Marie Presley, Michael’s first wife, will take the stand.

Debbie Rowe Against Testimony of Children, 17th February, 2005

Debbie Rowe, ex-wife of Michael Jackson and mother of his two oldest children, Prince and Paris, is hoping to prevent her children from testifying in their father’s upcoming child molestation case.

The names of the two children were listed as possible defense witnesses in the trial, while Rowe has been named on the prosecution’s list.

No word yet on the actions she is planned to take.

Apparently Debbie was selling her wedding ring on ebay in March 2005 and was answering questions to Ebay Members

Mar-08-05

Q: Cheers all around, well…. maybe not for you but I broke open some bubbly today. Anyway, since your having such a nice day and I’m still in a sharing mood, Michael gave me a VERY NICE ring when we got married. The Real Mrs. Michael J. Jackson,(SABAH)

A: time to increase your lithium now—does Michael know that his wife is dating? He does now

Q: Dear Debbie, the one thing that is really annoying me about you is that you act like the victim. Saying you dont want to sell the ring because it has alot of ‘sentimental value’ to you. But you would not have to sell the ring if you did not try to get Michael Jacksons children off him which caused him to stop your money. Do all of us a favour and get a real job! Michael is a fantastic father and deserves his children unlike you who’s willing to give them up for
money! Michael Jackson is innocent and it will be proved!
Mar-06-05
A: If you people would quit attacking me for NO reason and knowing absolutely NOTHING about any situation, I am a victim of your ignorance shame you choose to show it publically. Keep reading those academic papers that are refered to as tabloids.

Q: tell michael i love him and he has my support 110%
Mar-06-05
A: will do

Q: hi debbie,ive never actually spoken to a *celeb* before, im just saying hi, to see if you reply. all the best in the future, vinny.
Mar-06-05
A: Thanks Vinny, but I NOT the celeb……..never have been never wanted to be. I’ve tried to reply to the normal e-mails.

Q: Does this ring have any inscriptions on the inner band. Thankyou for your reply.
Mar-06-05
A: no it does not, except for PT900 (platinum stamp)

Q: i hope you don’t get custody of Michael’s children. he raised them, and raised them right. it is your own fault for giving them away in the first place. go back to topless modelling in the dentist chair!!! glad i never met you…
Mar-05-05
A: so you don’t want the ring………..don’t bid

Q: michael jackson is innocent
Mar-05-05
A: and this is regards to the ring how?

Q: What is the total weight of the center stone and the total carat weight of
the ring?
Mar-05-05
A: 2.13 carats is the center stone total weight is 2.66

Q: Good luck Debbie. I hope you get a million for it. Bren
Mar-05-05
A: would not be enough for the sentimental value……but thanks

Q: Was reading your description of the ring. Your saying in the listing that it is VS1 clarity and yet when you describe it below that you state a SI1 clarity. Was it VS1 when bought and now has changed to a lower clarity since worn? Not sure, what you are selling in the Diamonds………. David
Mar-04-05
A: the center diamond is VS1, the accent diamonds are SI2

Q: Debbie, is the ring too heavy that it makes it uncomfortable to wear, or does it feel normal? Thanks for your time, I know you are busy.
Mar-04-05
A: very comfortable

Q: Dear Debbie, is the ring made by a particular jewel designer? like Cartier, Tiffany or Harry Winston? and best of luck with the auction and with your life.
Mar-04-05
A: the ring was purchased in Sydney from Ivan Vortuni at House of Giulians. I have tried to find him, but to no avail, if you find him, let me know!!!!!!!!!!

Q: Debbie, please don’t hurt Michael, we are all begging you. I dont know if these stories are true in the papers but if they are I would have thought better of you. I thought you were kind hearted.
Mar-04-05
A: what have I done? Please post your opinions on your fan sites…you have no idea what is going on. I wish him only the best

Debbie Rowe Testimony, April 2005





What kind of work was that that you were
doing for Mr. Klein?
A. He’s a dermatologist. I was an assistant
for him.
Q. For what period of time were you his
assistant?
10 A. From 1979 to 2000 or 2001.
11 Q. What kind of work did you do for Mr. –
12 Dr. Klein?
13 A. I assisted him with surgeries and patients.

Q. You then had a conversation with Ronald
13 Konitzer as well?
14 A. For a brief moment. Michael was with him.
15 Q. Did Michael Jackson then get on the
16 telephone?
17 A. Yes, he did.
18 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: What did Mr. Jackson say to
21 you in the course of this conversation?
22 A. He told me there was a video coming out, and
23 it was full of lies, and would I help. And I said,
24 as always, yes. I asked him if he was okay. I was
25 very upset.
26 Q. When was the last time you had talked with
27 Michael Jackson?
28 A. The day of our divorce. 7940
And how long prior to that, to this
2 conversation you’re now referring to, was that day
3 of your divorce?
4 A. October 12th.
5 Q. Of what year, please?
6 A. .99.

7 Q. All right. So we’re now talking about
8 February of 2003; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, he asked you for some kind of
11 assistance; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What exactly did he ask you to do, if
14 anything?
15 A. He asked if I would work with Ronald and
16 Dieter to help him, and I said yes. And I asked him
17 how he was. I asked him how the children were. And
18 I asked if I could see them when everything settled
19 down.
20 Q. What did he tell you?
21 A. He said yes.
22 Q. All right. Had you had any communication
23 with Mr. Jackson in the preceding period of time
24 with regards to the children?
25 A. No.
26 Q. Had you sent any letters to him at all
27 requesting that you be able to see them at some
28 point in time? 7941
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you want to see the children?
3 A. Very much.
4 Q. All right. The conversation that you had
5 with Mr. Jackson over the telephone, did he tell you
6 from where he was calling?
7 A. No. I was told by Marc that they had to
8 call Europe.
MR. ZONEN: Why did you do this interview?
MS. ROWE: I promised him that I would always be there for him and the children.
MR. ZONEN: All right. During the course of your being at the house conducting
this interview, did you talk with Mr. Schaffel any further about your children?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: All right. What did he say with regards to your children while you
were at his house?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.
MR. ZONEN: Same exception. I will add also it’s a statement in furtherance.
THE COURT: I reject that as a reason, but let me look. All right. I’ll allow the
question for the limited purpose of explaining her action after that. Do you
want the question read back?
MS. ROWE: I can’t see that far, yes, please.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Record read.)
MS. ROWE: That they were fine; that Michael was going to be okay; that it was — he was happy for me that we were all going to get to see each other again, and how big the kids have gotten, and how beautiful they were, and how strong-headed Paris is and — about like me.
MR. ZONEN: What was your expectation with regards to your children in terms of your completing this interview?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. ZONEN: Did you have any expectations with regard to your kids at all?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: What was that? What were your expectations?
MS. ROWE: To be reintroduced to them and to be reacquainted with their dad.
MR. ZONEN: You wanted to be reacquainted with Mr. Jackson as well?
MS. ROWE: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: Why?
MS. ROWE: He’s my friend.
MR. ZONEN: When was the last time you had actually seen Mr. Jackson related to your two oldest children?
MS. ROWE: The day that we signed our divorce papers.
MR. ZONEN: Did you have any information at all about his parenting skills with your children?
MS. ROWE: Just — yes, I did. I — when I was seeing the children, I spoke with
the nannies before we divorced. I saw him with the children. I’ve seen him with the kids the whole time I’ve known him.

At this time, Judge Melville declared the court in recess until the following
morning at 8:30 a.m. Court was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

MR. ZONEN: How did you approach this
13 interview in terms of your affect?
14 A. I was excited to do it.
15 Q. Why?
16 A. Because I would get to see my children and
17 possibly renew a relationship with Mr. Jackson.
18 Q. Why did you want to do that?
19 A. They’re my family.
20 Q. Did you consider them your family?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you consider Mr. Jackson to be your
23 family to the same extent as your children?
24 A. I don’t think anyone is as much as your
25 children, but, yes.
Q. When was the last time you had been to
11 Neverland?
12 A. Years. I couldn’t tell you. Probably .99,
13 .98.
. Okay. And I believe you said yesterday
2 you’ve stayed his friend, right?
3 A. I’ve always considered him my friend.
4 Q. And you still do, right?
5 A. Yeah. If he’d talk to me. Sorry.
6 Q. And without question, the communicating
7 through lawyers has created problems with –
8 A. Have you met Mr. Hall? Extreme problems.
9 Q. Okay. Okay. You’re blaming the lawyers for
10 a lot of that, right?

In that interview, what kind of a person did
27 you say Michael was?
28 A. Generous. To a fault. Giving and kind. 8019
1 Q. Anything else do you recall saying?
2 A. Good father. Great with kids. Put other
3 people ahead of him. Things like that.
4 Q. If you can, do you remember anything else
5 you said about Michael?
6 A. He’s a brilliant businessman. There’s
7 different Michaels. There’s, like, my Michael.
8 Q. Do you want some water?
9 A. And the Michael that everyone else sees.
10 Q. And that would be the public Michael?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That would be Michael the entertainer,
13 right?
14 A. Michael the entertainer, yeah.
15 Q. When did you first meet Michael?
16 A. In the .80s.
17 Q. And how did you meet Michael?
18 A. Through my office when I worked with Dr.
19 Klein.
20 Q. Okay. And what was your position with Dr.
21 Klein at the time?
22 A. I was an assistant.
23 Q. And Michael went to Dr. Klein for various
24 treatments, right?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. And do you recall when he first went to Dr.
27 Klein?
28 A. Yes. The very first day, yes. I was not 8020
1 his nurse then.

HE WITNESS: Sorry.
4 THE COURT: Stricken.
5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Let me try and ask it
6 again. What was the first tour that you went on
7 with Michael?
8 A. “Dangerous.”
9 Q. And approximately when was that?
10 A. I don’t remember. That was — all those
11 tours. And they all just ran together, because it
12 was a long schedule.
13 Q. Okay. Was it in the .80s or .90s; do you
14 know?
15 A. I think it was in the early .90s.
16 Q. Okay. And where did that tour go to?
17 A. I think it started in Bangkok, and went
18 throughout Asia, Japan, Singapore. Then there was a
19 break. And then it went to Europe.
20 I did go to the last concert in Gutenberg, I
21 think on the tour previous to that. Because
22 Gutenberg wasn’t on the “Dangerous” tour.
23 Q. And were you traveling with Michael along
24 with his physician?
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. Okay. And you then went on another tour
27 after that?
28 A. Yes. 8022
1 Q. And what tour was that?
2 A. “History.”
3 Q. Okay. And approximately when was that?
4 A. It seemed like it was right after
5 “Dangerous,” within a year or two after “Dangerous.”
6 It could have been a little bit longer than that.
7 Q. And you were on that tour along with the
8 physician as well, right?
9 A. We were married when that was going on.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. So, no. Klein would come every once in a
12 while, but I was there every three weeks to see
13 little Michael and Michael and to see how everybody
14 was, because I was still working. I couldn’t more
15 often than that.

20 Q. I mean, your first time you ever met Mr.
21 Sneddon was the early .90s, wasn’t it?
22 A. I don’t remember. I remember I did a
23 deposition. I thought it was for a woman. I don’t
24 remember. I don’t remember any of that part. I
25 tend to block out unpleasantries. I don’t remember
26 any of that part. I don’t remember if Mr. Sneddon
27 was there or not.
28 Q. Okay. 8023
Did you ever see Ronald Konitzer
18 interact with Michael Jackson?
19 A. Not since I had met him in Europe on tour
20 years before.
21 Q. So you’re talking about conversations that
22 may have taken place when, in the early .90s?
23 A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you still like Michael
26 Jackson?
27 A. I have very strong memories and feelings for
28 the Michael that I have known but haven’t seen since
1 1999. But those are based on my feelings. We
2 haven’t spoken.
3 Q. All right. Is it the case that the sum
4 total of your communication with Mr. Jackson since
5 1999, six years ago, was a two-and-a-half-minute
6 conversation that you described?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And that was a conversation where he asked
9 you to participate in this video; is that correct?
10 A. To work with Ronald, Dieter, and Marc.
11 Q. Is it clear to you that he understood that
12 you wanted to see your children?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Did he ever call you to say
15 that –
16 A. No.
17 Q. — or to invite you up to come see the
18 children?
19 A. No, he didn’t.
20 Q. Who do you believe is responsible for your
21 not being able to see the children?
22 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Relevance;
23 foundation.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You can answer the question.
26 A. He’s their father. Ultimately it’s his
27 decision. I don’t want to believe that. I want to
28 believe that it’s other people. I want to believe
1 it’s Marc Schaffel threatening him that I want to
2 take the children, things like that.
BY MR. ZONEN: Tell us, in your opinion, who
9 is responsible at this time for your not being able
10 to have access to your children?
11 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection.
12 THE COURT: Overruled.
13 THE WITNESS: When I was first promised to
14 see the kids, when Michael — he called me, for me
15 to show up when they were at that age of three and
16 four, four and five, I could be introduced as a
17 friend, as a friend of daddy’s. And you don’t
18 confuse a child by saying, “Oh, this is your
19 mother.”
20 I can’t do that now. They’re too old. To
21 do something like that, it would be too traumatic.
22 I would not walk in and say, “Hey, I’m your mom,”
23 you know, “Want to go out?”
24 It’s — it’s so much more complicated than
25 that when reintroducing yourself to children who may
26 or may not remember me.
27 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Are you saying that you
28 believe that Mr. Jackson is amenable to your seeing
1 your children; it’s just a question of how?
2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;
3 argumentative; no foundation.
4 MR. ZONEN: It’s impeachment, Your Honor, as
5 to the leading issue
6 MR. MESEREAU: Improper opinion.
7 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
8 Do you want the question read back?
9 THE WITNESS: No. Thank you.
10 I’m hoping in my heart that he is. But we
11 haven’t spoken, so I don’t know. I get to deal with
12 Abrams and Hall.
BY MR. ZONEN: Why do you believe he hasn’t
14 spoken with you?
15 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading;
16 argumentative; foundation; relevance.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he is
19 concerned about this case. I don’t know what his
20 concerns are, if he thinks I’m going to take the
21 children from him. I don’t know. I haven’t spoken
22 to him. I don’t know.
And did you feel Dieter was trying to hurt
15 Michael and also your children?
16 A. I think they’re opportunistic vultures.
17 Q. Would that be Dieter, Konitzer and Schaffel?
18 A. Okay. You can do them alphabetically if
19 you’d like.
20 Q. You’re talking about the three of them,
21 right?
22 A. All of them.
23 Q. Who else are you referring to as vultures,
24 besides those three?
25 A. If it’s a personal opinion, does it count?
26 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as beyond
27 the scope of the direct examination and speculative
28 and improper opinion. 8011
1 THE COURT: Sounds like she’s got a long
2 list. I think I’ll sustain the objection.
3 (Laughter.)
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. ZONEN: Did you know Frank Cascio?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How did you know Frank Cascio?
23 A. I met his family years ago.
24 Q. Years ago?
25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. How old was Frank Cascio when you met his
27 family?
28 A. It was just after little Michael had been
1 born. He must have been middle teens maybe. He was
2 the oldest of the boys.
3 Q. You didn’t know him as a person who was
4 involved in Mr. Jackson’s relationships or business
5 affairs?
6 A. No.
7 Q. He was a teenager?
8 A. This is years ago. We’re talking –
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yeah. No, no, no.
11 Q. Did he visit Mr. Jackson regularly?
12 A. The family came up — I knew him with the
13 family, when Mr. and Mrs. Cascio were there with the
14 kids, with the boys.
15 Q. Did you understand Frank Cascio’s
16 relationship with Michael Jackson to be very close?
17 A. He was close with all the Cascios.

Jackson’s Ex Could Reveal Kids’ Parentage, Roger Friedman, April 27, 2005

Today is supposed to be “D-Day” or “Debbie Day” for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson case. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon has subpoenaed Debbie Rowe, the singer’s ex-wife and mother of his two eldest children, because he thinks she will damage Jackson in front of the jury.

The worst she can do is answer questions about her children’s paternity. In that case, I am told, she will have to concede that Jackson is not the father of Prince, 8, and Paris, 7.

Rowe has suffered for years by perpetuating the lie that they were conceived in a conventional manner. The truth, according to my sources, is that she acted as a surrogate twice and was artificially inseminated — and not with Jackson’s sperm. This open secret was revealed in a London tabloid last year, but Rowe has verified it to friends.

But Sneddon has other needs for Rowe’s testimony, and this may be another setback for him.

He plans on trying to get Rowe to say that an interview she gave for “Entertainment Tonight” and The Globe tabloid newspaper in February 2003 was scripted. Sneddon thinks such an admission will support his argument that Jackson’s people also scripted the video made later that month by the family of the boy accusing him of sex abuse.

But the prosecution will have its work cut out on this issue — because Rowe’s interview, I am told, was not at all scripted.

In fact, Rowe volunteered at the time to tape the interview to help Jackson. I’m told that not only did no one ask her to do it, but she was not paid for it either. At the time, Jackson and Rowe were still on relatively good terms over their children.

So what actually happened? Ian Drew of US Weekly did the interview for “ET.” Drew submitted a list of 100 questions to Jackson associate Marc Schaffel by e-mail on Feb. 4, 2003. That was the day after “Living with Michael Jackson,” the Martin Bashir documentary, aired in Britain.

If the subsequent interview had been scripted, as the prosecution claims, the answers Rowe would have given might have been more circumspect. But they are pure, original Debbie Rowe — very off-the-cuff and honest.

In the interview, which will likely be played back today for the jury, Drew asks Rowe pointed questions about Jackson’s sexuality, their sex life, their marriage, her role as a parent, Jackson’s parenting skills and a lot of other subjects that would certainly not have surfaced in a controlled setting. Her answers are often evasive and not exactly flattering to Jackson.

After the video was done, Drew — who’s on the defense list of possible witnesses — came back and asked to see the finished tape so he could make a transcript of the interview for The Globe. Sources tell me the “script” Sneddon will produce in court today is actually that transcript.

“You can see the time code on it,” my source said. “Sneddon just doesn’t get it. That script was made after the interview, not before.”

What’s on this video? For one thing, Rowe admits that the couple married because she was pregnant with Prince. She admits to not spending her wedding night with Jackson and not visiting Neverland very often at all. She also says that if she had been asked at the time of the marriage, she would have said there was no physical attraction to Jackson.

Drew asks — and it’s hard to believe this would have been a sanctioned question — “Did you have sex to make ?”

Rowe responded evasively but strongly, “That is extremely inappropriate to ask. My answer is: That is an extremely inappropriate question. So let’s not go there. Thank you.”

Rowe, by the way, had to get permission from her attorney and Jackson’s to do the interview so she wouldn’t break the confidentiality agreement she signed with the singer. After the interview aired, she received not even a thank-you from Jackson and never saw her children again, despite having a visitation schedule. Jackson, according to sources, never even returned her phone calls. When the child molestation scandal broke nine months later, Rowe’s attempts to speak with Jackson were again completely rebuffed.

Debbie Rowe’s Testimony Sets Back Prosecution, 27th April, 2005

Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson’s ex – wife and mother of two of his children, took the stand in Santa Maria today for about 40 minutes . The topic of testimony for the past few days has been if the praise directed to Michael by both the accuser’s mother and Debbie Rowe in the rebuttal video. It is the accuser’s mother, Janet Arvizo, who claims that her remarks were scripted. Ms. Rowe, on the other hand, tearfully reported today that she was never scripted or rehearsed to say positive things about Michael in the video “Take Two…”

Prosecutors called Ms. Rowe hoping to bolster their argument that Michael conspired to hold the Arvizo family captive in order to convince them to rebut the Bashir documentary. And the prosecution had said that Ms. Rowe would offer similar testimony. Back on February 28, D.A. Sneddon told the jury in his opening statement that they were going to hear Debbie Rowe tell a tale similar to that of Janet Arvizo. 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 Debbie Rowe’s testimony Wednesday did not pan out the way the prosecution had hoped.

Ms. Rowe said “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.”

Ms. Rowe said that he was offered a list of questions by interviewers, but declined to look at them prior to the interview. “It was a cold interview and I wanted to keep it that way,” she said.

Ms. Rowe appeared nervous at first. She told the jury that she and Michael had been friends and that they were married, but never shared a home. When Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen asked her what she expected would happen after the interview, she responded that she believed that she would be “reunited with the children and be reacquainted with their dad.”

She said that she spoke with Michael in 2003 on the phone and that he had told her that there was a video coming out and that it was full of lies. He asked her if she would help and she said yes. She said that the conversation lasted about 2 1/2 minutes and that Michael did not specify what exactly he wanted her to do. When asked why she would help Michael, Ms. Rowe responded, “I promised him I would always be there for Michael and the children.”

Some court observers said Rowe seemed to have a genuine affection for her ex-husband – even as she testified for the prosecution.

Ms. Rowe made it clear that she would not discuss any details of her private life with Michael. “My personal life was my personal life and no one’s business,” she said when the prosecution asked if she had spoken completely truthfully in the video.

Ms. Rowe said that the taped interview lasted nine hours and that she recently saw a two – hour version that was shown to her by the prosecution. She said that she found it “very boring and dull” and really didn’t pay attention while she was watching it. She also said that she did not see the Bashir documentary prior to her interview was taped.

“All I knew is what was being put out about Michael was hurtful to Michael and the children,” she said.

Ms. Rowe is expected to be on the stand for at least a few days and could be the prosecution’s final witness before it rests its case.

Earlier in the day, the defense requested a mistrial during a controversy that involved testimony regarding the television documentary. Judge Melville turned down the request.

At least one legal eagle said Rowe’s testimony shouldn’t be a part of this trial. Criminal defense attorney Drew Findling told FOX News:

“This is another example of Judge Melville losing control of this trial. This is why this trial is taking forever. To the rest of the U.S., this is garbage. … Who gives a crap? If ever she [Debbie Rowe] has been scripted, she’s been scripted for today.”

Friedman – Debbie Rowe Classes Up The Trial, April 28, 2005:

As I predicted yesterday, Debbie Rowe was not the blockbuster witness for the prosecution in the Michael Jackson trial. Rowe did just as I said she would: she comported herself with dignity and told the truth.

She said she did not read from a script in her February 2003 television interview supporting Jackson. She told the court that she answered all the questions posed to her with her usual spontaneity and honesty. It was another decisive moment in this trial for the defense, and they haven’t even begun to present their own case.

Now that Rowe has made her appearance, though, do we think Jackson will show his appreciation? She could have easily lied, or at least colored her testimony to make him look bad. She had every reason to do so if she wanted revenge.

It has been years since since Jackson has let her see the two children she gave birth to, even though I’m told he may have no biological connection to them. He has even taught them to think they have no mother. And Jackson has done all this to a woman who was his friend for several years prior, and agreed to give him children as a gift.

Forget that she was paid millions in exchange. Debbie Rowe is a human being, even if Michael Jackson doesn’t think of her that way. She proved it yesterday.

Isn’t it time Jackson showed her the same respect she’s shown him? In their custody-alimony case, long running in Los Angeles family court, Jackson continues to send in a succession of attorneys with new and daunting motions all aimed at one thing: to deny Rowe the right ever to see her children again. That doesn’t sound like the mark of a great humanitarian and supporter of children. And with Jackson, I’m told, the hypocrisy doesn’t end there.

Debbie Rowe Finishes Testimony: Michael Great Father, 04-28-2005

Debbie Rowe’s finished her testimony on Thursday. Her testimony was sometimes teary, sometimes salty and sarcastic. At one point she said, “Damn you” to prosecutors in an apparent misunderstanding about a question.

Rowe reiterated that she did not use a script when she recorded the video interview. She said that at some point she was asked to rephrase answers to make them clearer, but agreed to change the answers “only if it didn’t change the meaning of what I had to say.” Prosecutor Ron Zonen asked:

And what was the meaning of what you had to say?”

Rowe replied: “Michael is a great person and a great father, generous and caring.”

Zonen then asked a series of questions about statements she made on the tape that were not true. Debbie Rowe acknowledged that she represented herself as part of Jackson’s family even though at that time she was not. But she said she did consider herself part of the family. Asked why she was willing to help Jackson, she said:

“I was eager to do it because I would get to see my children and possibly renew a relationship with Mr. Jackson.”

After the interview there was some discussion with Jackson associate Marc Schaffel about when she would see her children. He told her they would soon arrange a visit to the Neverland Valley Ranch and that she waited to push the issue because “I didn’t want to be a nudge.”

The prosecution also asked a question designed to show she had no recent knowledge of Jackson’s parenting skills at the time of the interview:

“How long had it been since you had seen your children?”

Debbie Rowe answered:

“About 2 1/2 years.”

On cross-examination she said she did not blame Michael Jackson for keeping her from her children but felt that his advisers and lawyers were to blame.

Defense attorney Mesereau tried to show that some of the men who prosecutors say tried to conspire with Jackson may have been working against him. Mesereau asked Rowe if she had told sheriff’s deputies that she believed Schaffel and German businessmen Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer were trying to exploit Jackson’s name to make money.

“Oh yeah,” Rowe replied.

She testified that at one point she even tried to get a note to Michael Jackson that expressed her trepidations. Rowe said the associates recruited her to make a video praising Jackson, then sold it for millions and kept the money. She said the organizer of the video, Marc Schaffel, bragged to her about how much money he was making off Jackson.

“He was out to hurt Michael and in addition would hurt my children.

“He’s like everybody else around Mr. Jackson. He wouldn’t tell him everything … Obviously he’s full of …”

She used an expletive to describe Schaffel and said he was “talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling me one thing and telling Mr. Jackson something else.” She also testified that she does not believe Jackson was privy to all activity by his associates:

“There’s a number of times they don’t consult him.”

Asked about the relationship of Schaffel, Wiesner, and Konitzer to Jackson, she said,

“I think they’re opportunistic vultures.”

When asked who else she considered to be a vulture, she paused and prosecutors objected. Judge Melville ruled:

“It looks like she’s got a long list. I think I’ll sustain the objection.”

Rowe also had harsh words about Jackson’s former attorney, Mark Geragos. When Mesereau asked her if one of the alleged co-conspirators had retained Geragos, Rowe snickered.

“I don’t know who picked him. But whoever did made a huge mistake. Come on. He either pleads out or loses.”

At one point, Mesereau asked Debbie Rowe if she was aware that the Sheriff’s Department had recorded her. Looking surprised, she turned to the prosecution table and said:

“You did? You did? No, I didn’t know that. Damn you guys. You don’t share anything.”

However, further questioning suggested the recording was an interview with an investigator that Rowe actually knew was recorded.

When she was asked by the defense to describe Jackson, she caught her breath and said:

“Generous to a fault, good father, great with kids, puts other people ahead of him. Brilliant businessman.”

When Mesereau asked her, if she still considered Jackson a friend, she replied:

“Yeah, if he’d talk to me.”

She became tearful when she described her feelings about Michael:

“There’s different Michaels. There’s like my Michael and the Michael that everyone else sees.

According to people present in the court room Michael Jackson dabbed at his eyes as she spoke.

Mesereau asked: “That would be Michael the entertainer?”

“Michael the entertainer, yeah.”

She also said that Michael is a “great person and a great father”.

At one point she almost engaged in a dialogue with Michael. Asked when she had gone on tour with Jackson, she looked to the defendant and asked:

“What was the tour after ‘Bad?’ Was it the ‘HIStory’ tour or ‘Dangerous?’ Oh, it was ‘Dangerous.”‘

As Michael Jackson left court at the end of the day he was asked if it was good to see Rowe again:

“Yes,” he said.

Rowe had been called by the prosecution to bolster a charge that Michael Jackson and his associates conspired to hold the accuser’s family captive to make a video praising him. But the strategy may have backfired when Rowe portrayed Jackson as the one victimized by the men, who are named as unindicted co-conspirators in the case. San Francisco defense lawyer Michael Cardoza, who has been observing the trial, said:

“Deborah Rowe was a devastating witness for the prosecution.”

He noted that it was even more damaging because prosecutors are about to wind up their case.

“It’s like thinking you see a light at the end of a tunnel and it’s a train coming at you.”

According to CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales, almost every answer Debbie Rowe gave caused reporters to gasp. CBS News Legal Analyst Trent Copeland said:

“When Debbie Rowe came on the witness stand, she did everything the prosecution didn’t want her to do. This suggests to me that either this is a prosecution that, at the end of their case, is either scrambling for witnesses or they really can’t control their witnesses.”

CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen summarized Debbie Rowe’s testimony as follows:

“Jackson ought to be sending flowers to his ex-wife because she rode to his rescue in court. Answer after answer, she helped the defense, she hurt prosecutors and the police, and she left the case against Jackson much worse than she found it.

The problem for prosecutors is that they had to gain ground with Debbie Rowe. They needed her to tie together some of the strands of their case against Jackson, and instead of doing that they very clearly lost ground. Meanwhile they are running out of time before the end of their case and they just won’t have many more of these opportunities.”

Iris Finsilver, Debbie’s Attorney on Larry King Live, Aired April 28, 2005

KING: We now welcome, for an exclusive interview, Iris Joan Finsilver. She is Debbie Rowe’s attorney, that’s Michael Jackson’s ex-wife, who finished her testimony today, and because of the gag order and attorney/client confidentiality, there are some major constraints on what Iris can talk about. Tell us what we can’t talk about.

IRIS JOAN FINSILVER: Well, we can’t talk about the criminal trial. I can’t talk about the testimony. I can’t talk about the witnesses. I can’t talk about the family law matter.

KING: Thank you for coming, Iris.

FINSILVER: I can’t talk about the attorney/client privilege.

KING: Quite a pleasure meeting you.

FINSILVER: But, I’m happy to be here, Larry.

KING: Very happy to have you. What about her emotionally? She was quite emotional today, so, without going into specifics, does that surprise you?

FINSILVER: No, it doesn’t surprise me a bit, because, you can imagine what it would be like to face, for anybody, to face their ex- husband, somebody that they’ve had issues with, and they’re dealing with their children, and the most important things in their lives — it would be very difficult, I would expect, for anybody under that kind of circumstance, to go into a criminal trial and have to — have to answer questions.

KING: And all reports were that she was friendly for the defense — she looked at over at him appealingly — but she’s also in a lawsuit with him. Is there a conflict here? In her own — emotionally, without going into specifics, it seemed strange if you’re suing someone to also be favorable to them.

FINSILVER: You know, this is what I was saying. It’s very difficult to put yourself in somebody’s shoes, when you’re fighting for your children, for the things that are most important in your life, and she was called by the prosecution. I can’t really get into that.

KING: Were you surprised that the prosecution called her?

FINSILVER: Yes, I was, in the beginning, yes.

KING: Because everyone was saying she was going to say that she was coached in what to say and she said she wasn’t coached in what to say.

FINSILVER: You know, I don’t know what she testified to because I wasn’t in the courtroom.

KING: How did you become — how did you get to be her attorney?

FINSILVER: We started out with a friendship about 16 or 17 years ago.

KING: When she was a nurse?

FINSILVER: She was a nurse. She was working for Dr. Klein.

KING: Famous Dr. Klein.

FINSILVER: Yes, Arnold Klein in Beverly Hills. And, she and I became really very close, and I admired her qualities. She’s a really down-to-earth, hard-working, honest, decent person. She’s really a fine human being.

KING: How did she handle losing her children, emotionally?

FINSILVER: This is something that I feel uncomfortable talking about, because of the attorney/client privilege, so whatever she would have said to me, you know, about losing her children.

KING: What was your reaction to her as a mother? You said she was loving and everything.

FINSILVER: Yes.

KING: It must be horrible to go through life without being able to be with your own children.

FINSILVER: Well, that’s why I’ve been fighting so hard. I really — I believe in her position. I believe in her position very strongly, and I’ve been fighting for a long time and I’ve been fighting a very hard battle.

KING: It’s been said, all of the panelists have said on previous nights, if Michael were convicted, she would get the children. So, in a sense, wouldn’t she root for him to be convicted?

FINSILVER: I don’t know that she would root — if she believed — I don’t know what she believes in her mind, but, if, in her mind, hypothetically speaking, if she didn’t believe that he committed a crime, I don’t think that she would want an innocent person to go to jail.

KING: Even if it benefited her?

FINSILVER: I — She’s not that kind of person. She’s a very nice person.

KING: In an interview that aired on “Entertainment Tonight” last fall, Debbie Rowe was asked about her fears, gave very a cryptic answer. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DEBBIE ROWE, MICHAEL JACKSON’S EX-WIFE: I have fears I can’t talk about, and I wouldn’t. And my biggest fear is that those fears happen. And I can’t stop it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Why weren’t you allowed in court?

FINSILVER: Because we were both — you’re talking about today?

KING: Because you testified, too?

FINSILVER: I was called as a witness today and I testified today. So I — they like to keep the witnesses apart from one another so I couldn’t hear.

KING: What were you asked? You can say that, because we’re going to report that in a minute, so, what were you asked?

FINSILVER: I was asked…

KING: You can’t be gagged about something that’s already happened. This, I know.

FINSILVER: I was asked about a taping — a taped interview that occurred in 2003 — what I observed, what I heard.

KING: Was this the interview that she did in response to the interview that harmed him?

FINSILVER: The Bashir interview?

KING: Yes. This is the post-Bashir interview?

FINSILVER: Yes, that’s what I was asked about.

KING: You were asked about that. You weren’t on the stand very long?

FINSILVER: Not very long at all. No.

KING: Did the defense cross-examine you?

FINSILVER: No, they excused me right away.

KING: Tell us about what we don’t know about Debbie Rowe.

FINSILVER: Well, I think that people don’t understand the difficulties, the real difficulties, that she’s had, being thrust into the public spotlight. I don’t think that they understand why she’s made certain decisions that she’s made, but that’s because people don’t know what happened along the way. They don’t know what happened at step A, that led to step B, that led to step C. I don’t think they know how loyal and giving and generous — she’s a really great girl. She really is. She’s interesting. She’s full of life. She’s very private. So, she hasn’t been on television. She hasn’t discussed her life, and I think that people would not really know how kind and sweet she is.

KING: Wouldn’t it help, when this is over, for her to go on television, to get — the medium is the message?

FINSILVER: That’s what I think, but I don’t tell her whether she should go on television or not.

KING: But you could advise her.

FINSILVER: I can advise her.

KING: That’s what lawyers do right?

FINSILVER: Yes.

KING: What do you know about the marriage?

FINSILVER: I know they’re divorced.

KING: I know but there’s so many questions about it. Was there sex involved in that marriage?

FINSILVER: I don’t know. I wasn’t in the bedroom.

KING: They’re her children, though?

FINSILVER: They are her children.

KING: She gave birth to them?

FINSILVER: She gave birth to two of the three children — to Prince Michael and to Paris Catherine.

KING: Does she dislike the spotlight?

FINSILVER: Yes.

KING: What does she do?

FINSILVER: Well, she has a horse ranch now. She loves animals. She devotes herself to animals. You know, I told you she’s a sharing, generous, caring person. She now has 12 horses. And she has one horse that’s having a baby, maybe as we speak.

And so while she was up at the trial she kept calling and asking how the horse is doing. And she’s very concerned. And she takes care of the horses. She takes care of the tack room and the barn and all of those.

KING: Was it hard for her, Iris, to look at Michael? She hadn’t seen him in a long while, right?

FINSILVER: You know, Larry, like I told you, I didn’t talk to her about what happened in the courtroom today. She testified. And as soon as she finished testifying this morning, I went into the courtroom, and I gave my few minutes of testimony.

KING: How has she dealt with the bad publicity she’s gotten over apparently accepting money in lieu of having the reunion with the children. How has she dealt with that?

FINSILVER: Well, it’s devastating, of course. You know, for her to hear, oh, she sold her children to Michael Jackson…

KING: What is the true story?

FINSILVER: Well, that’s not the true story. That is not the true story.

KING: She did not sell the children — in a sense sell?

FINSILVER: No. No, absolutely not. But that’s what she has to listen to, and it’s very painful.

KING: Why doesn’t she have partial custody, then?

FINSILVER: Well, we’re working on something.

KING: How did she lose that? It’s hard for a mother to not have some custody of her own children?

FINSILVER: I wish I could tell you more. I can’t. There is…

KING: There’s no gag order in a civil case.

FINSILVER: No, there’s no gag order. But it’s a confidential proceeding. And it’s proceeding along — the family law matter is proceeding with long with Steven Lax. He’s a private judge — private, retired judge. And everything in that proceeding is very confidential.

KING: Is his decision binding?

FINSILVER: It can be appealed. And now that you mention it, there are currently two matters up on appeal in the court of appeals.

KING: He’s already ruled on?

FINSILVER: There’s different issues. Family law is not just one matter, it’s many different issues. And there’s one issue that’s in the court of appeals, and that’s public record.

KING: It’s not public?

FINSILVER: That’s public, yes.

KING: Which was that?

FINSILVER: Well, there was one order reinstating Debbie’s parental termination. There was a parental termination proceeding. And we were successful in getting that set aside. And Michael’s counsel has appealed that decision.

KING: I see.

So you’re now in the ball’s bouncing in the air kind of thing.

FINSILVER: Yes.

KING: As an attorney with some experience, are you confident she’s going to get at least partial custody back of those children?

FINSILVER: In my opinion?

KING: Yes.

FINSILVER: Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be working so hard on this matter. Yes, I think that she should.

KING: And just to reiterate, the reason she doesn’t have them is not because she took money?

FINSILVER: No.

KING: It was not a financial deal?

FINSILVER: No. No, it was not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROWE: We are a family unit. Michael and I will always be connected with the kids. I will always be there for him. I will always be there for the children. And people make remarks, oh, I can’t believe she left her children. Left them? I left my children? I did not leave my children. My children are with their father where they’re supposed to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Rowe’s Attorney Testifies 29th April 2005

On Thursday, Debbie Rowe was followed to the stand by her attorney, Iris Joan Finsilber.

Finsilver testified that she was present for the taping of Rowe’s interview and that Jackson’s associates repeatedly said such things as, “Oh, Michael will be very pleased about this.” She also testified there was talk that they would soon visit the Neverland Valley Ranch.

Investigator Testifies About Debbie Rowe, AP News, 3rd May, 2005

District Attorney Tom Sneddon brought in Sgt. Steve Robel today in an attempt to impeach Debbie Rowe’s testimony. Ms. Rowe proved to be a disappointing witness for the prosecution last week when she testified that Michael Jackson was a wonderful fahter, a generous person and a victim of “opportunistic vultures” in his inner circle who were attempting to take advantage of his problems for their personal gain.

Robel said that when he spoke with Ms. Rowe, she expressed concerns with Michael’s parenting. “She referred to Michael as a sociopath and his children as being possessions,” he told the jury. Robel also said that Ms. Rowe had told him that she and Michael had a plan following their divorce in 1999.

Judge Melville sustained a number of objections from the defense as Robel attempted to elaborate. In the end, he was able to describe the idea was “to talk positive about Mr. Jackson” after the divorce in all statements made to the public. Robel testified that Ms. Rowe said that those statements were false.

Debbie Rowe Calls In The Police, 12th May, 2005

Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson’s ex-wife, has called police to her rural horse ranch near Los Angeles after telling them she fears for her life in her new home. Specifically she fears she’ll be attacked in her home by those who were upset by her glowing remarks about Michael Jackson on the stand In Santa Maria less than two weeks ago.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies were caught on camera inspecting her spread home. Police officials insist they’re glad Rowe is concerned about her wellbeing and called – because it’s better to be prepared for the worst. Police spokesman Mark Machanic said:

“Some people do not like her and there could be incidents of violence and she should be concerned for her safety. We’re concerned also.”

Machanic revealed Rowe was particularly distressed by a conversation she had with a female journalist:

“She had a confrontation with a female reporter. The newspaper reporter took off and almost ran her over. We’re conducting an investigation on that.

We’ve told her that if she sees a suspicious vehicle in front of the home to just call us and we’ve advised her in regard to citizen’s arrest procedures for trespassing.”

Aired June 13, 2005 – 17:30 ET

DORNIN: Also, Wolf, I just did want to add…

BLITZER: Rusty, just to remind our viewers because I know you were there together with Ted for virtually every step of the way, Debbie Rowe was called — the ex-wife of Michael Jackson, the mother of two of his children — Debbie Rowe was called to testify on behalf of the prosecution, but what she said, widely interpreted as helping Michael Jackson, the defense, given the loving nature of what he had to say about Michael Jackson.

ROWLANDS: And, keep in mind, Wolf, that if Michael Jackson would have been found guilty, Debbie Rowe would have been taken custody of the children and she is currently in a custody fight for those children. People were blown away by her testimony. It was so supportive of Jackson on the stand, and now, with the verdict in, again, she is showing her support, saying she is overjoyed.

Debbie Rowe Happy About Verdict, Fox News, 14th June, 2005

Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson’s ex-wife and mother of two of his children, is thrilled that Michael is a free man after he was acquitted on all charges. Speaking through her attorney, she was among a number of high-profile supporters to issue statements after the verdict was announced.

“Debbie is overjoyed that the justice system really works, regardless of which side called her to testify at the trial.”

Although she had testified during the trial as a prosecution witness, her testimony turned out to be a very big support for the defense. A big thank you goes out to Debbie for supporting Michael in such difficult times.

In an interview to ‘Entertainment Tonight’ Debbie Rowe also said:

“I would never have married a pedophile. And the system works.”

Prosecution Probed Debbie Rowe, 12th July, 2005

According to the NY Post, prosecutors ordered the LAPD to find out if Debbie Rowe had received any benefits in order to testify in a positive way about her ex-husband Michael Jackson in the recent trial.

Debbie Rowe had inititally testified as a prosecution witness. However, her testimony proved extremely helpful for the defense and rather devastating for the prosecution. For example she described Michael Jackson as a great person and a wonderful father. That triggered the DA’s demand for a probe.

Last week L.A. Detective Federico Sicard reportedly said that he uncovered no double-dealing by Rowe:

“(Prosecutors) thought that she had been bribed by the defendant, but there wasn’t any proof.”

Debbie Rowe Sues Michael Over Payment, AP News, 13th July, 2006

Debbie Rowe filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 3, 2006. She is suing Michael Jackson, claiming he has failed to pay her what he promised when the two divorced in 1999. She seeks an immediate payment of $195,000 for attorney fees and $50,000 in living expenses.

In the lawsuit Debbie Rowe claims that Michael Jackson stopped making promised payments to her in October, 2003. The arrangement included $1 million per year for the first three years and $750,000 annually for six more years. Rowe also received a house in Beverly Hills and a 1998 Ford Explorer. She agreed to visit her children only once every 45 days.

The next court hearing on the matter is slated for July 26, 2006.

Update On Rowe Lawsuit, 28th July, 2006

The hearing in the case Debbie Rowe vs. Michael Jackson has been postponed until August 23, 2006. On Wednesday, there were no other major developments and no new documents have been filed since July 3, 2006 when Debbie Rowe for example stated she was broke.

Debbie Rowe had filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 3, 2006. She is suing Michael Jackson, claiming he has failed to pay her what he promised when the two divorced in 1999. She seeks an immediate payment of $195,000 for attorney fees and $50,000 in living expenses.

Rowe Vrs. Jackson Court Case, NYPost, 25th August, 2006

Back in 1999, Michael Jackson gave Debbie Rowe over $8 million in support and legal fees in their divorce settlement. Michael was granted custody of their two children, Prince Michael Jr, who is now 9 and Paris Michael who is now 8.

Debbie is now fighting to regain custody of the two children and is seeking around $245,000 in new legal fees from Michael.

In a response filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday but released on Thursday, Michael argues that he has already paid Rowe’s prior legal fees plus the millions of dollars agreed upon in the settlement. He also claims that she has broken a nondisclosure clause in the agreement.

The case will be heard by Judge Robert Schnider on Sept. 5.